Should evolution be taught in high school?

[DanFromSmithvill e]

obesity wrote:

<quoted text>
Its should be taught in a history type class
its does make people think, just like reading all the books we had to read in english class that weren't factual. its also makes people think outside of the box and in shades of gray rather than black and white.
Evolution does mean change.
Human and apes may have a common ancestor, but we did not come from apes.
if science of human origins were full of absolute truth, there would be no arguing in the scientific community.

If you teach religion in public schools, which religions should get the most play or be the primary religions taught? What should churches teach then, if they are no longer needed to teach about their religions?

No, we did not evolve from apes. We evolved along with them from a common ancestor.

Lots of things make people think. Nude women make me think and then stop thinking, but that isn't reason to teach the subject in school. Your criteria is a little too broad to use in determining public school curricula.

I will work under the assumption that you went to public school for your education. If this is true and yet here you are discussing science, religion and stuff that makes you think, what does that say for the need to teach religion in public school? Yes, I know that it is an n of 1, but I am just trying to make you think.

There will always be arguments in science. But the existence of argument over a particular subject does not bring down the foundations of science as some would alledge.

[obesity]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
The only "arguing" about human origins is with religitards who say "God dunnit" with magic.

its very closed minded of you to think that the only people who dont hang on your every genius word are religious.

[DanFromSmithvill e]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I already did.

Do it again. Don't disappoint the boys.

[DanFromSmithvill e]

obesity wrote:

<quoted text>
first off ive never even read a holy book and dont plan to..without testing it, it is useless, but i can come up with many ideas in my head about how we got here, all the what ifs and be satisfied that i may never know the correct answer and maybe we are not supposed to know for some reason..it doesnt take away fromm me going to work and making a living, my family and i going on vacation, mowing the lawn, cooking dinner, cleaning the crapper, and just surviving. everyday life still goes on and i can have fun drinking scotch with friends and trying to solve the mysteries of the world.

Well, then I am left to wonder why you even bother to post on here.

[Ooogah Boogah]

obesity wrote:

<quoted text>
no shizer sherlock, they made the choice to do these things, they made the choice to follow a certain religion..they have only themselves to blame.

So the wiser thing to do is to NOT follow absurd religions like Christianity. Got it!!

[Urban Cowboy]

Igor Trip wrote:

<quoted text>
Please define these differences as I'm not aware of any.

Get a grip.

[Ooogah Boogah]

obesity wrote:

<quoted text>
its very closed minded of you to think that the only people who dont hang on your every genius word are religious.

Ad hominems, is that the best you can do?

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I already did.

You lost.

[Urban Cowboy]

See? It is so obvious from this exchange that Darwinism isn't about science. It's about a belief in an ideology. They don't need any evidence. I asked if macroevolution was ever observed. No evidence.

[Urban Cowboy]

Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!

[Ooogah Boogah]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

See? It is so obvious from this exchange that Darwinism isn't about science. It's about a belief in an ideology. They don't need any evidence. I asked if macroevolution was ever observed. No evidence.

No, it is obvious from this exchange that your village is missing an idiot.

[Ooogah Boogah]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!

That's probably because the way you have it defined, it is not a valid concept having nothing to do with Evolution.

[One way or another]

All that BS and BS as evidence. Gotta love the morons.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

See? It is so obvious from this exchange that Darwinism isn't about science. It's about a belief in an ideology. They don't need any evidence. I asked if macroevolution was ever observed. No evidence.

No evidence that you have allowed yourself to acknowledge. The actual information presented to you, however, has been akin to a global deluge.

You like to pretend things never happened but they did.

You like to pretend you never lose, but you always do.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!

Quote please. And in context for a change.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!

Here are some things Dawkins has actually said:

“Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order."

"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."

“We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes.”

“Why would an all-powerful creator decide to plant his carefully crafted species on islands and continents in exactly the appropriate pattern to suggest, irresistibly, that they had evolved and dispersed from the site of their evolution?”

“Even if it were true that evolution, or the teaching of evolution, encouraged immorality that would not imply that the theory of evolution was false.”

Deal with those then we can deal with your fantasy quotes.

[Mugwump]

I declare victory regarding the (il)legitimacy of creation science On the grounds that although UC refuses to concede honestly, he does so unwittingly and implicitely by irrational deception and avoidance.

[Pinky And Ze Brain]

Only creationists haven't evolved.

They don't believe in evolution for a good reason. It's because they haven't evolved, they still have the intelligence of a primitive ape.

Only we have evolved to our present form of intelligence.

[Ooogah Boogah]

Pinky And Ze Brain wrote:

Only creationists haven't evolved.
They don't believe in evolution for a good reason. It's because they haven't evolved, they still have the intelligence of a primitive ape.
Only we have evolved to our present form of intelligence.

Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?

[Pinky And Ze Brain]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?

Yes, it's the fact that creationists are a relic of history. They're bloody storytellers, yet some think that their stories are actually true. Unfortunately for them, they're still stuck in the primeval ages, believing in magic, mysticism, and bloody gods!