~Taikun Nozomu~
IMO, it would be strange not to teach them. Besides, I've always been taught to reconcile science and spirituality. There's proof of evolution and of the millions of species that existed on our world everywhere, but even the path of this evolution is so intricated, and the history of Earth is so special that I think it's a miracle even grater than a 'sudden creation'. Anything a little different, and we wouldn't be here. But we are here. And yes, I believe all of this is thanks to God.
This makes the presumption that humans are somehow special and were
meant to be here.
Arrogance does not make a good argument.
lily_maiden
First of all, as I have said a million times over and will say again, stop ******** saying "proving beyond all doubt" or even "proven" at all. If you were even at an AP bio level, you would realize that it is very bad to say proven because you don't prove anything.
I'm far past an AP high school class. I'm a senior at a university level, proficient enough that they allow me to
teach the courses, and have conducted research. It is perfectly acceptable to say "proven
beyond a reasonable doubt". That's precisely what "theory" means. As such, it's fine to equivocate the two.
lily_maiden
Get an AP bio textbook and read it - it cleary says to NEVER use the term prove because it is impossible to completely prove anything, even if evidence leans in that direction.
You're right that nothing is ever proven infinately. But it can be to a reasonable standard. But writing "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" it much longer than just "theory" which means the same thing. As such, textbooks use the latter. But in an effort to remind the ignorant here what "theory" means, many of us use the full extent of its definition.
lily_maiden
Secondly, it does no harm to teach creationism as an alternative and to merely bring to light its existence as an alternate idea.
Incorrect. Creationism is not an alternative in science. Pretending it is undermines the entirety of science because it gives the appearance that the scientific method, evidence, and all that fundamental stuff is optional. It's not. Thus, Creationism is extremely harmful.
lily_maiden
And no, it is not a completely agreed upon concept
In the scientific community, it is. There's less than .01% dissent. So virtually all of science agrees that evolution happened. It's outside the scientific community that there is this "controversy". But we dont' teach public sentiment in science classes. We teach science. Thus, what's important is what the scientific community agrees upon. This is evolution. Not Creationism.
lily_maiden
It is a theory - plain and simple. A THEORY. There is no consensus on its validity.
You're abusing the definition of theory again. Perhaps you should learn what it means before continuing.
lily_maiden
Whether you like it or not, creationism is actually more widely believed than evolution
Only in America. The rest of the world laughs at us.
lily_maiden
Also, research the issue a little and you will discover, there actually is some scientific data for it
I've researched it for 5 years now. The "scientific data" is either fabricated, or misconstrued. It does not hold up to even casual scruitny. Thus, your claim is hollow.
lily_maiden
Once you have learned all about both ideas, at a college level, and are not just spewing opinions supported by very little empirical knowledge and background, THEN come back and we'll talk. Until then, have fun being ignorant.
Again, my knowledge far exceeds your own. I'm about to get my degree in the scientific field and have been heavily involved in Creationism/evolution for 5 years now. You calling me ignorant is, well.... ignorant.
ichogo67
Who the heck would belive in evolution i mean serioulsy how the heck would a germ evolve into a human over millions of years and if we came from monkeys why wouldnt all the rest of the monkeys just stay monkeys it doent make sense so what do you have to sayabout that.
Evolution does not say we came from monkies. If you knew what it actually stated, the answer to the first half of your question would be obvious. As to why there are still monkies, that's about as intelligent as asking, "why, if Americans came from Europe, are there still French?"
100
100
100
