Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist	39.3%	[ 1138 ]
Protestant	16.9%	[ 489 ]
Catholic	14.1%	[ 407 ]
Hindu	1.3%	[ 37 ]
Muslim	1.8%	[ 53 ]
Jew	2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist	5.1%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox	0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan	14.2%	[ 412 ]
Egyptian	4.2%	[ 122 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2895 ]

[Lord Setar]

Minori Hime

viper232

twilight_is_for_idiots

I support evolution with all my heart and have believed in it since I was a very small child. That being said I completely respect people who do not believe in it as it is a personnal choice. So long as they are not rude about it I'm fine.

... Curious... do you respect people who claim that creationism is scientifically supported, want to get it taught in public schools, substantiated by empirical evidence, and evolution is just lies?

Is it more a "you can believe what you want privately just don't go promoting it", or a "we can all believe what we want because neither is more true than the other, it's just personal beliefs"?

If it's the former, fine, if it's the latter... you're an idiot >.>

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

I tend to lean for the former, in a way. I don't feel that creationism should be taught in schools, but I do feel that children should be encouraged to form their own beliefs on the matter, based on the evidence they see. Teachers should never completely undermine the chance for a child to go out and form their own conclusions. Broadening your horizons and learning what you can is the key to an open, productive mind. A lot of evolutionists may find that such an encouragement would help the cause, rather than hurt it.

Evolution is the only theory of the two which is supported by the scientific community and that is what should be taught. Teachings on creationism, if given any mention at all, should be in passing and as a way to introduce children to the idea of other views. Sort of the way you can teach about religions in schools, but you can not endorse them.

As for me, I'm a sort of creationist. Not the sort who believes that the Earth is > 6,000 years old, that the Earth is flat, that there were seven literal 24 hour days of creation, etc. But a sort of creationist, in any case. smile

Just my two cents.

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

Except that, barring intellectual dishonesty via ignoring evidence, the conclusion will end up being evolution because that's what the evidence supports =/

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Evolution is obviously fiction. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gorillas.

[Lord Setar]

Minori Hime

Lord Setar

Minori Hime

viper232

twilight_is_for_idiots

I support evolution with all my heart and have believed in it since I was a very small child. That being said I completely respect people who do not believe in it as it is a personnal choice. So long as they are not rude about it I'm fine.

... Curious... do you respect people who claim that creationism is scientifically supported, want to get it taught in public schools, substantiated by empirical evidence, and evolution is just lies?

Is it more a "you can believe what you want privately just don't go promoting it", or a "we can all believe what we want because neither is more true than the other, it's just personal beliefs"?

If it's the former, fine, if it's the latter... you're an idiot >.>

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

I tend to lean for the former, in a way. I don't feel that creationism should be taught in schools, but I do feel that children should be encouraged to form their own beliefs on the matter, based on the evidence they see. Teachers should never completely undermine the chance for a child to go out and form their own conclusions. Broadening your horizons and learning what you can is the key to an open, productive mind. A lot of evolutionists may find that such an encouragement would help the cause, rather than hurt it.

Evolution is the only theory of the two which is supported by the scientific community and that is what should be taught. Teachings on creationism, if given any mention at all, should be in passing and as a way to introduce children to the idea of other views. Sort of the way you can teach about religions in schools, but you can not endorse them.

As for me, I'm a sort of creationist. Not the sort who believes that the Earth is > 6,000 years old, that the Earth is flat, that there were seven literal 24 hour days of creation, etc. But a sort of creationist, in any case. smile

Just my two cents.

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

Except that, barring intellectual dishonesty via ignoring evidence, the conclusion will end up being evolution because that's what the evidence supports =/

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

Then what have you got to lose?

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

Integrity. Why should we introduce an unscientific concept that is blatantly false in science class? Why should it even be mentioned? It's not science, what place does it have being mentioned in any sort of light in science class outside of historical background?

[Lord Setar]

Minori Hime

Lord Setar

Minori Hime

Lord Setar

Minori Hime

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

I tend to lean for the former, in a way. I don't feel that creationism should be taught in schools, but I do feel that children should be encouraged to form their own beliefs on the matter, based on the evidence they see. Teachers should never completely undermine the chance for a child to go out and form their own conclusions. Broadening your horizons and learning what you can is the key to an open, productive mind. A lot of evolutionists may find that such an encouragement would help the cause, rather than hurt it.

Evolution is the only theory of the two which is supported by the scientific community and that is what should be taught. Teachings on creationism, if given any mention at all, should be in passing and as a way to introduce children to the idea of other views. Sort of the way you can teach about religions in schools, but you can not endorse them.

As for me, I'm a sort of creationist. Not the sort who believes that the Earth is > 6,000 years old, that the Earth is flat, that there were seven literal 24 hour days of creation, etc. But a sort of creationist, in any case. smile

Just my two cents.

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

Except that, barring intellectual dishonesty via ignoring evidence, the conclusion will end up being evolution because that's what the evidence supports =/

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

Then what have you got to lose?

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

Integrity. Why should we introduce an unscientific concept that is blatantly false in science class? Why should it even be mentioned? It's not science, what place does it have being mentioned in any sort of light in science class outside of historical background?

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

Well, I'm not actually suggesting that creationism should be mentioned or taught in a science class.

Because you're correct. That discussion is not best suited for a science classroom. But I do think it should be allowed to be discussed (an an objective way) in school and not completely outlawed. I don't see anything wrong with a teacher telling a child that other views exist and that they should form their own opinion after they are presented with the facts. I grew up not knowing that other views existed at all! And really, that's just pathetic.

One quote I enjoyed, from the back cover of the Opposing Viewpoints book series, says "Those who do not know their opponent's arguments do not completely understand their own." I completely agree. I support understanding and encourage intense self study.

Knowing that other views exist and even learning about them can open your mind in an amazing way. I see no problem with encouragement to learn what you can about both sides of the argument. If such a thing were commonplace, I think the world we live in would be much better.

Just to clarify, I did say that "Evolution is the only theory of the two which is supported by the scientific community and that is what should be taught." and also "I don't feel that creationism should be taught in schools", that is to say, creationism should not be taught as fact in schools in the same way that evolution is.

It's my humble opinion. You're very welcome to your own.

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

I don't think knowing one's opposition really works here because this is a matter of objective fact or not. It's really not a matter of opinion, and the arguments for the "alternatives" are either flawed, misconceptions, or absolute falsehoods really. Opening one's mind to alternate viewpoints would be better done in a social studies class with regards to current events, where both sides have arguments that hold merit.

[Jaaten Syric]

John Calvin

Evolution is obviously fiction. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gorillas.

Oh Calvin, must you stir the hornets nest of 'people who don't know you well enough to disregard that statement'? neutral

[Lord Setar]

Jaaten Syric

John Calvin

Evolution is obviously fiction. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gorillas.

Oh Calvin, must you stir the hornets nest of 'people who don't know you well enough to disregard that statement'? neutral

I don't think he noticed that Didymus was about earlier.

[Jaaten Syric]

Minori Hime

Then what have you got to lose?

The short answer? Everything. Absolutely everything. Listen, I can understand the allure of a 'teach the controversy' position, as it seems rational on the surface, but it doesn't work that way. Can you imagine a parent seriously suggesting that we teach both geocentrism and heliocentrism in a class and let kids decide for themselves? How about Astrology vs astronomy? Alchemy v chemistry? Flat earth v spherical? Now, I do not remember having any dealings with you in the past, but so far you seem like a fairly rational person to me, so shall assume that you would reject these out of hand for exactly the same reason why I would reject the creationists/IDiots. To teach something, even in passing is to legitimize it, at least in the minds of a few (this is precisely why many scientists will not 'debate' evolution with a creationist; they see the mere act of agreeing to a 'debate' as ammunition the creationists can use against them, after all, one cannot debate somethign if there is no [real] controversy, right?)

Add to that, given the stated agenda of many of the groups now pushing for this (specifically the Discovery Institute) I can't say I like the prospects of this staying within the bounds of evolution. I would bet everything I own that, should a proposition like this come to pass, the 'controversy' behind radiometric dating and the big bang being forced into class would not be far behind.

Lastly there is the issue of how difficult it is to get teachers in the country to simply teach evolution in many areas. adding something like this to the mix will only make things worse, as now teachers can simply devote the majority of the time defending creationism and defaming evolution while staying within the letter of the law. Listen, it was bad enough having to finish up my high-school overview of evolution under an avowed creationist, I cannot imagine how badly that may have turned out if some of these suggestions were put in place, nor how much of the good work done by my original teacher would have been neatly tucked away in favor of dishonest rhetoric. Am I being alarmist and pessimistic when it comes to this issue? Probably, but I do not think that education ought to be something we leave up to fourteen year olds. This sounds like a great lead back down the path to the dark ages, and I see no reason why we shouldn't fight it tooth and nail. The only time I want to see creationism in a class is when the teacher is outlining exactly why and how badly it fails both as a hypothesis and when compared to observed reality. That is all it deserves, and hopefully, that is all it shall receive.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Jaaten Syric

Minori Hime

Then what have you got to lose?

The short answer? Everything. Absolutely everything. Listen, I can understand the allure of a 'teach the controversy' position, as it seems rational on the surface, but it doesn't work that way. Can you imagine a parent seriously suggesting that we teach both geocentrism and heliocentrism in a class and let kids decide for themselves? How about Astrology vs astronomy? Alchemy v chemistry? Flat earth v spherical? Now, I do not remember having any dealings with you in the past, but so far you seem like a fairly rational person to me, so shall assume that you would reject these out of hand for exactly the same reason why I would reject the creationists/IDiots. To teach something, even in passing is to legitimize it, at least in the minds of a few (this is precisely why many scientists will not 'debate' evolution with a creationist; they see the mere act of agreeing to a 'debate' as ammunition the creationists can use against them, after all, one cannot debate somethign if there is no [real] controversy, right?)

Add to that, given the stated agenda of many of the groups now pushing for this (specifically the Discovery Institute) I can't say I like the prospects of this staying within the bounds of evolution. I would bet everything I own that, should a proposition like this come to pass, the 'controversy' behind radiometric dating and the big bang being forced into class would not be far behind.

Lastly there is the issue of how difficult it is to get teachers in the country to simply teach evolution in many areas. adding something like this to the mix will only make things worse, as now teachers can simply devote the majority of the time defending creationism and defaming evolution while staying within the letter of the law. Listen, it was bad enough having to finish up my high-school overview of evolution under an avowed creationist, I cannot imagine how badly that may have turned out if some of these suggestions were put in place, nor how much of the good work done by my original teacher would have been neatly tucked away in favor of dishonest rhetoric. Am I being alarmist and pessimistic when it comes to this issue? Probably, but I do not think that education ought to be something we leave up to fourteen year olds. This sounds like a great lead back down the path to the dark ages, and I see no reason why we shouldn't fight it tooth and nail. The only time I want to see creationism in a class is when the teacher is outlining exactly why and how badly it fails both as a hypothesis and when compared to observed reality. That is all it deserves, and hopefully, that is all it shall receive.

I must obligatorally point out that ID isn't the only 'alternative', so the point in just teaching that in science is moot until they agree to tell kids that Odhinn made the world out of a giant's body as well.

[Jaaten Syric]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

I must obligatorally point out that ID isn't the only 'alternative', so the point in just teaching that in science is moot until they agree to tell kids that Odhinn made the world out of a giant's body as well.

True, but I know of no organized efforts to get the Norse account of creation accepted into the curriculum and (Dark Master forgive me for even bringing this tired one hit wonder of a joke up...) given the results of actual efforts to have Pastafarisnism taught as an alternative, I don't hold out much hope for the fourteenth amendment actually being upheld here. sweatdrop

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Jaaten Syric

Celeblin Galadeneryn

I must obligatorally point out that ID isn't the only 'alternative', so the point in just teaching that in science is moot until they agree to tell kids that Odhinn made the world out of a giant's body as well.

True, but I know of no organized efforts to get the Norse account of creation accepted into the curriculum and (Dark Master forgive me for even bringing this tired one hit wonder of a joke up...) given the results of actual efforts to have Pastafarisnism taught as an alternative, I don't hold out much hop for the fourteenth amendment actually being upheld here. sweatdrop

Every effort to shove the stupidity back in their faces though. ninja

And you want to know why the Norse aren't? Because besides some allegorical giant slaying, the creation story of the universe is that essential elements came together and important s**t was created where they met.

Sound like anything you know?

[Jaaten Syric]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Jaaten Syric

Celeblin Galadeneryn

I must obligatorally point out that ID isn't the only 'alternative', so the point in just teaching that in science is moot until they agree to tell kids that Odhinn made the world out of a giant's body as well.

True, but I know of no organized efforts to get the Norse account of creation accepted into the curriculum and (Dark Master forgive me for even bringing this tired one hit wonder of a joke up...) given the results of actual efforts to have Pastafarisnism taught as an alternative, I don't hold out much hop for the fourteenth amendment actually being upheld here. sweatdrop

Every effort to shove the stupidity back in their faces though. ninja

And you want to know why the Norse aren't? Because besides some allegorical giant slaying, the creation story of the universe is that essential elements came together and important s**t was created where they met.

Sound like anything you know?

Right up until the point where men and women are shaped from trees, yes. ninja