Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

What is your "methodological scientific" approach to sexual relations fm? You need one to avoid a return to general promiscuity.

So, your jihad against the teaching of evolution boils down to the fear of "a return to general promiscuity"?

When had the world (Christendom included) ever left this "general promiscuity" in the first place?

Should creationism be taught in schools?
(By Kimberly C. Moore, The Gainesville Sun, August 13, 2010)

In the beginning, there was a candidate forum at the Oak Hammock retirement community for those running for the Alachua County School Board and the topic of creationism was brought up.

In the end, there were several voters who wanted to know how each candidate felt about public schools teaching creationism - the belief that a supreme being made the universe and world.

"This is of interest to the members of my group," Susan Bergert, president of the Humanist Society of Gainesville, wrote in an e-mail to The Gainesville Sun.

Eight of the 12 candidates running for the three seats attended the forum on Aug. 1. Two sent representatives in their stead and two did not show up. The Sun contacted the four who were not present. One who sent a representative that night - Jancie Vinson - did not return calls requesting a personal comment.

"When is evolution taught - is it on the FCAT?" Bonnie Burgess jokingly asked Thursday. She is running for the District 1 seat. "To me, it seems only logical to offer creationism. What's the point of teaching? It's to teach our children how to think and we should not be prejudiced to any one thought or idea. We should be able to offer all facts and theories."

"I do believe we should teach creationism as part of a well-balanced education that opens their minds to free-thinking," April Griffin said.

Felicia Moss agreed. "In a well-balanced education, we need to have those things, as well, and leave it up to the parents to expound on it."

But Rick Nesbitt said he is against it. "I am absolutely opposed to teaching creationism as science in our schools," he said. "Possibly in a philosophy course, that would be fine. I would absolutely safeguard the separation of church and state."

David Palpant said creationism does have a place in public schools. "Explain it in a class that teaches all religions," Palpant said. "Teach it all and let them make up their minds. They can make an informed decision if they're informed."

Two of the District 3 candidates are in favor of teaching creationism in some form.

Wayne Gabb said it could be taught in high schools. "This is something that could be brought up," said the elementary school math teacher. "My job is to present them with all options out there and let them make up their minds."

Jodi Wood, who was not at the forum, said it should be taught alongside evolution. "So long as we are teaching the theory of evolution, we should teach the other theory of creationism, too. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory."

But Gunnar Paulson disagrees. "I'm opposed to teaching creationism in public schools."

In the District 5 race, Jennifer Deachin, who was not at the forum, said she is opposed to teaching it as science, but in favor of teaching it as part of a religion course.

"I think everything should be taught," Deachin said. "I'm open to ideas and to presenting information to children, as it is to adults. You should teach everything and they should deduct their own thinking, their own reasoning because, wow, they're capable of doing that."

Carol Oyenarte said simply, "I believe in the separation of church and state."

Christopher Smiley, who was a philosophy major in college, said if it is taught in schools, it should be in a historical context. "They don't want to see it put alongside the hard-core theories of atheism and theism. They want to see it put alongside evolution."

The Rev. Milford Griner, senior pastor of Hall Chapel United Methodist Church, attended the forum for Jancie Vinson, who is running for the District 5 seat. "Jancie grew up in the church, but she's always had a high respect for the separation of church and state," Griner said. "She would not favor teaching creationism. It's the parents' responsibility to teach them."

The primary election is Aug. 24. Early voting is currently under way.

Can religious beliefs be tested scientifically? Yes or no?

On teaching creationism
(Albert Meyer, The Gainesville Sun, August 14, 2010)

In The Sun article published Aug. 13, regarding teaching creationism in public schools, the idea's proponents seem to be unaware of what such teaching would involve. I will overlook the separation and church provisions of our Constitution, which is the most significant reason for keeping creationism out of public schools and deal with some of the reasons the idea' backers mention for teaching it.

They say evolution is only a theory. That is true, but just about every major idea in science is a theory. What makes an idea a scientific theory is that it is presented in a way that it can be falsified. Experiments then can be conducted to see if the theory can be supported. This has been done for evolution, and this is why almost all scientists accept it. Are creationists willing to put their ideas, including that of a creator through empirical testing?

The creationists then say if not in science, perhaps it could be taught in some other subject such as religion, history or philosophy. If taught in history can they live with the findings of many historians and archaeologists that there is virtually no evidence for many religious beliefs. For instance in the well reviewed work by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman. "The Bible Unearthed," they show there is no evidence that Abraham or Moses ever existed as they are portrayed in the Old Testament. Are the creationists willing to have the findings of contemporary history, archaeology which deal with their most cherished ideas taught in the schools?

Finally if taught in philosophy, are they willing to have all the contradictions that appear in their major texts pointed out? Are they willing to see that their beliefs are no more valid than those of Hinduism, Islam and other religions? Philosophy does involve critical thinking?

My guess is that the answer to all the above questions are no. Perhaps the creationists by now may realize that religion which is based on faith, can be best taught in religious institutions, and that the separation of church and state was meant not only to keep religion out of the government's domain, but to also protect religion. Bringing ideas based upon faith into public debate could seriously endanger those beliefs.

Yes. And no, it isn't up to me to prove that God exists. The idea is ridiculous.

You can test religious beliefs using evolutionary principles.

Which belief works best for survival, growth and domination.

They say evolution is only a theory. That is true, but just about every major idea in science is a theory. What makes an idea a scientific theory is that it is presented in a way that it can be falsified.

they show there is no evidence that Abraham or Moses ever existed as they are portrayed in the Old Testament.

Philosophy does involve critical thinking?

My guess is that the answer to all the above questions are no. Perhaps the creationists by now may realize that religion which is based on faith, can be best taught in religious institutions, and that the separation of church and state was meant not only to keep religion out of the government's domain, but to also protect religion. Bringing ideas based upon faith into public debate could seriously endanger those beliefs.

So you admit that it is impossible to test if God exists?

Did you just get back from the pub when you posted that?

I tell you what spendi. You pray to your God to supply you with sustenance other than food and liquid. I will eat food and drink water. Let's see who survives the first month.

. You are surviving the same way someone without religion survives and then simply claiming it was religion while not being able to show one thing you did different from anyone else.

. It appears arrogance is a human trait that the religious seem to have in abundance.

That is not a question which suggests an easy answer. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. If God exists in a person's mind the materialists have to say that the God exists because the existence in that mind is a material object at the time it is in the mind. Like when someone says, often emphatically, "Oh my God!!" Or even when a question about God is being asked by a skeptic.

Roman armies encamping would have the ground dedicated to their Gods and ceremonies performed. Who is to say that such religious behaviour did not contribute to their success in taking over territory.

But then one could argue that evolution exists as the only science showing how species were made because it exists in someone's mind that it is true.

If someone thinking it is reason enough to have it exist then we would have to teach the earth is flat, Marlowe actually wrote the works of Shakespeare at the same time the Earl of Oxford wrote those same works, and the earth is indeed the center of the universe.

Therein lies the argument spendi. Lack of evidence is not evidence. You want to argue that not having evidence should carry as much weight as having evidence. That is nonsense.

That, again, is incoherent to me. I presume, perhaps unjustifiably, that Roman historians reported the evidence I gave for a possible evolutionary advantage to the "sacred ground" as being a true account.

Are you rejecting the evolution of behaviour as a significant aspect in the situation of life "becoming".

Homosapiens exist. Their behavior is not significant in creating the species. It is a result of the species existing.