Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (101704)	1/24/2009 4:58:42 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543150

I don't think it is any more unreasonable than my asking a holy roller "may I have my way with your wife?" They want to forcibly insert religion into science classes in my public schools. The completeness of the fossil record has NOTHING to do with it, it is about as relevant as the color of my neighbor's cat, the theories of natural selection and evolution in no way, shape or form depend upon a complete fossil record, and never have. You can not force your religion into my public school science classes, period. I don't care how you frame it, what arguments you make, it is not permissible and never will be.

To: Katelew who wrote (101704)	1/24/2009 5:03:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543150

Considering that the fossil record of man is still incomplete (I think, anyway), it never seemed like this was an unreasonable request. If they want to emphasize the point that evolution is only a theory, not a fact, I don't find that unreasonable. Actually, that would seem like a positive to me in that kids would have an example of the scientific process from hypothesis to theory to law. To delve into the particulars of what glitches there might be in the theory means a lot of detail for kiddies who are just supposed to learn the gist of it, not dwell on the innards. Teaching the flaws would be out of proportion and wouldn't be understandable without a lot of detail on the pro side, requireing more time than the subject deserves. So it seems to me that you would have to have a chip on your shoulder--an agenda--to push for teaching the flaws, which makes me suspicious of any legislation to that end.

To: Katelew who wrote (101704)	1/24/2009 8:49:42 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543150

John, I thought the creationists were wanting to just add a chapter/section, whatever, to the required biology class that included speculation on 'intelligent design' as a possible explanation for the origin of man. Don't know all the specifics of this one, Kate. It's my youngest brother's big issue of the last several years. He's very active in the Texas Freedom Network which has organized and funded much of the opposition to the social conservatives on this. I do know bits and pieces. First, no one, at least seriously, to my knowledge, has ever objected to intelligent design outside science curriculums. Contemporary issues, perhaps religion, but not science. That's where the social conservatives want to put it. Second, the portions of the college level science community recruited to oppose this were truly large and impressive. Best and brightest sorts. And contributed to it. Third, you will note somewhere in the various arguments about this that the science types were content with discussions of weaknesses as long as they were empirically based, i.e. science based, I believe was the term. (Editing this later, one might substitute the notion of falsifiability here as well.) Since the essence of good science is to never be settled with findings, to always critically examine them, I assume any good scientist would be comfortable with examining weaknesses so long as the grounds for such examinations were scientific ones. But, and finally, as I recall, these were read as more than attacks on evolution but on science as a way of knowing.