@ant. I honestly think I'm going to break down and cry. You don't know what a scientific theory is and you clearly don't know what hominid fossils have been discovered. Being ignorant about it doesn't make you right.

antfromtashkent said: wfz said: satantfromtashkent said: MontanaHatchet said: Senlis said: SciFiBoy said: so, saying that a leading scientific theory with evidence to support is better than a theory that has 0 evidence to support it and is based on texts that are thousands of years old is offensive to you? First off: Science has no ability to prove or disprove religion.  So yes, there is 0 evidence to support Christianity. Second off: It is fine to teach it as a theory.  However, the schools are not teaching it as a theory, but as a fact.  The main problem is his attitude to the Christians who believe it should be taught as a theory.   Teacher: And the letter "A" is the first letter of the alphabet. Student: Only in your opinion.   Horrible example.... that is a fact.... Evolution theory is a theory not fact. Just as you can say im not gonna believe that god created the earth in 7 days i can say i dont believe that my great great great great great .... grandfather was a monkey       Wow, and here I thought it was a bit overkill for everyone to state and restate in every post what it means to be a scientific theory.... Maybe they should all have written it in flashing colors. "The State Board of Education voted on the science standards — the list of basic scientific knowledge students should have at various grade levels, like knowing that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter, the Earth goes around the Sun, and — say — evolution is the basic and most fundamental aspect upon which all of modern biology is based." E volution is a theory and should be treated as such, that is my argument.... when they uncover a focil that looks like this wake up please

 

Good God. Evolution itself is not a theory. It's been proven on a cellular level. You really need to learn the difference between evolutional theory and homo sapiens' individual role in the theory. Stop clumping the two together. It makes you look ignorant.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Different humanoid skull variations:

This alone shows that the human skull has changed over the years (which implies that brain size has also changed), I could do more research, like bringing up stuff about Lucy and the like, but I'm a lazy fucker.

Whatsmore, evolution is very apparant, even today, and it's causing huge problems in medical science. Also, lice control is pretty much up the Gary as well nowadays, due to the lice adapting to our current chemicals.

So the Discover Magazine is Anti-God? In other news jumping in water makes splashes.

However this author is an ass. That pic is over the top and rude to say the least. I am not against putting Creationism and some biblical principles back into the education system, but first there needs to be a foundation for which it can properly rest. Thrusting ideas on anyone without them being ready for them is a sure fire way for them to reject it.

How about Texas requires the reading of older books, say C.S. Lewis, first; then we can talk about other things.

My question is why atheists are so defensive when creationists want evolution to be taught as a theory. It is not like they want Christianity to be taught in the schools. It seems that atheists believe that if they cast the slightest doubt on the theory of evolution, then the students won't believe it.

A fact is that which is observed, a theory is an explanation for a set of facts. A theory in science can be tested by making predictions of what new facts should be or should not be found. And in this regard evolution has come through countless times with ridiculously specific predictions that turn out to be true.

Creationists shouldn't have a problem with the theory of evolution, they should have a problem with the facts found in biology, paleontology, geology, genetics and so many other fields that contradict what would be necessary and true if everything was made by a perfect and intelligent designer.

Senlis said: My question is why atheists are so defensive when creationists want evolution to be taught as a theory. It is not like they want Christianity to be taught in the schools. It seems that atheists believe that if they cast the slightest doubt on the theory of evolution, then the students won't believe it.

It's a matter of intentional misrepresentation by a group with a very specific agenda. If the coca-cola group wanted to cast doubt on the idea that water is better for your body than soda in health class I wouldn't come away with the idea of "well, hell let's teach 'em about all this controversy around water vs coke!". It's that a specific religious group doesn't like an area of science that contradicts it's world view and wants to misrepresent that science in order to make it's own world view seem more probable. There are PHDs that try to teach geo-centrism (they also work for conservative religious groups), as insane as that sounds they exist. Should we teach the controversy about Helio-centrism? Or would that be an insane misrepresentation science?

Senlis said: My question is why atheists are so defensive when creationists want evolution to be taught as a theory. It is not like they want Christianity to be taught in the schools. It seems that atheists believe that if they cast the slightest doubt on the theory of evolution, then the students won't believe it.

On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy. The "teach the controversy" campaign is an attempt to get pseudoscience taught in classrooms. Lessons about the sociological issues of the evolution-creation controversy may be appropriate in history or other nonscience classes.

If the object is to keep bad science from the classroom, the same standards should be applied to the counterarguments from creationists, which are all bad science.

Evolution is almost certainly the most hated scientific theory in history. Many people think it threatens morals, civilization and their very souls, and virtually nobody wants it to be true. Starting from the first day that Origin of Species was published, it has faced constant challenges from some of the most powerful politicians and religious leaders, not to mention incessant disapproval and attacks from the general public. The only thing evolution has going for it is the evidence. If that evidence were not extremely strong, evolution would have been torn to irreparable shreds decades ago.

Like all theories, evolution is subject to scientific attack, too. Achieving a major revision of established theory is something that many scientists dream of. Plus, many scientists feel the same emotional opposition to it that so many non-scientists do. If a credible alternative to evolution appeared, biologists would race to publish it. Indeed, scientists have made some significant revisions of details to the theory of evolution, but there has been no such race to overthrow the basic theory.

The theory of evolution is stronger than ever, accepted around the world without a hint of informed scientific challenge to the basic theory. The controversy surrounding evolution has made it one of the most scrutinized theories of all time, and evolution has withstood that scrutiny with flying colors.

 

Senlis said: My question is why atheists are so defensive when creationists want evolution to be taught as a theory. It is not like they want Christianity to be taught in the schools. It seems that atheists believe that if they cast the slightest doubt on the theory of evolution, then the students won't believe it.

so, no matter how much evidence of Evolution is posted, youre gonna ignore it