That's So Wrong: The Evolution of Our Education System

Mar 25, 2013 Full story: www.examiner.com 11

A state recently had a bill come up that would ban science teachers from giving a student a lower grade for writing a paper that tries to debunk evolution , a theory which National Geographic said recently that the evidence for was "overwhelming." Evolution is supported by radiometric dating, Hubble's law, observations of cosmic background ... (more)

Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1 Mar 25, 2013
Idiots should not write articles about things they know nothing of.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#2 Mar 25, 2013
I thought it raised two interesting issues: 1. What should teachers do when students spend more effort refuting the subject matter than learning it? and 2. Should legislatures interfere with the process by prohibiting one obvious option?

I think that teachers should be trusted to handle situations like this. Sometimes the effort will reflect a thorough understanding of the material even if it doesn't agree. At other times, the refutations will come from sheer ignorance. there's probably a fair amount of territory in between. The legislation in question could force teachers to justify anything less than an a for papers attempting to refute evolution. That's so wrong.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#3 Mar 25, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
I thought it raised two interesting issues: 1. What should teachers do when students spend more effort refuting the subject matter than learning it? and 2. Should legislatures interfere with the process by prohibiting one obvious option?
I think that teachers should be trusted to handle situations like this. Sometimes the effort will reflect a thorough understanding of the material even if it doesn't agree. At other times, the refutations will come from sheer ignorance. there's probably a fair amount of territory in between. The legislation in question could force teachers to justify anything less than an a for papers attempting to refute evolution. That's so wrong.
Did you read the list of what they claimed was evolution was "supported" by? Clearly not educated enough to write on the subject. As for options, what other "options?"

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#4 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the list of what they claimed was evolution was "supported" by? Clearly not educated enough to write on the subject. As for options, what other "options?"
Yes, I noticed that, too.
Thinking

Mirfield, UK

#5 Mar 26, 2013
What state? I didn't see any sources in this article regarding the alleged bill.

I believe in Evolution because of the evidence but this reads like a polemic. It should be rewritten.
CunningLinguist

Hernando, FL

#6 Mar 26, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Do...

On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement - "an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view" - to be read in class was unconstitutional.

The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

All eight of the Dover school board members who were up for re-election on November 8, 2005 were defeated by a set of challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, the ninth member was not up for re-election.

The school board president subsequently stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#7 Mar 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the list of what they claimed was evolution was "supported" by? Clearly not educated enough to write on the subject. As for options, what other "options?"
Which ones do you think do NOT support evolution?
Thinking

Mirfield, UK

#8 Mar 26, 2013
At first glance, this part of the list.

"cosmic background radiation, primordial nucleosynthesis, distribution and morphology of galaxies, theory of general relativity"

I don't think they're about Evolution. I believe they're evidence against a young Earth, which is not in itself Evolution, although this allows time for Evolution to occur.

Happy to see valid arguments to the contrary, if indeed they exist.
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Which ones do you think do NOT support evolution?

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#9 Mar 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
At first glance, this part of the list.
"cosmic background radiation, primordial nucleosynthesis, distribution and morphology of galaxies, theory of general relativity"
I don't think they're about Evolution. I believe they're evidence against a young Earth, which is not in itself Evolution, although this allows time for Evolution to occur.
Happy to see valid arguments to the contrary, if indeed they exist.
<quoted text>
I will concur that they may not directly support evolution, but they do indicate (as you so correctly state) an evidence of the time required to allow evolution to take place.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10 Mar 27, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
I will concur that they may not directly support evolution, but they do indicate (as you so correctly state) an evidence of the time required to allow evolution to take place.
However the time element is only required for speciation, not evolution itself. The current state of variety combined with those now extinct require the time as an explanation of why, the rest doesn't need the actual length of time we see with those evidences.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#11 Mar 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
However the time element is only required for speciation, not evolution itself. The current state of variety combined with those now extinct require the time as an explanation of why, the rest doesn't need the actual length of time we see with those evidences.

Speciation is a part of overall evolution. My point is that I don't think I would disregard the entire piece along with it's main message because of a relatively small, technicality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 58 min Joe fortuna 232,800
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr Eagle 12 2,275
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr EXPERT 23,181
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 6 hr _Bad Company 120
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 10 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 10 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 11 hr thetruth 1,442
More from around the web