What is Digg?669 Comments
- zplot, on 05/26/2008, -13/+173I once had a Physics teacher who didn't know the Pythagorean Theorem, but this story is scary.
"Thirteen percent of teachers thought an excellent biology course could exist without mentioning Darwin or evolutionary theory." And I guess calculus can be taught well without mentioning algebra. - fxu1989, on 05/26/2008, -18/+169religion, gtfo from my schools.
- monospaced, on 05/26/2008, -11/+162One in eight biology teachers should be fired.
- lopla, on 05/26/2008, -7/+83I would pull my kid out of any school stupid enough to allow this *****.
- floridiot2, on 05/26/2008, -8/+79I really don't get it. It's science class. TEACH SCIENCE. Creationism is not science.
- Obzerva, on 05/26/2008, -6/+75Speciation has been observed in laboratory settings. Let me repeat that. Speciation has been observed in laboratory settings:
Oenothera gigas
Primula kewensis
Tragopogon
Raphanobrassica
and much, much more. - monospaced, on 05/26/2008, -9/+76This is what is wrong with where this country is headed. I can't believe we're going backwards!
- Daz3, on 05/26/2008, -4/+68"This is a very good thing since science itself has shown that there is no statistical way for life on this planet to have evolved"
False.
"much less come about via abiogenesis, through natural processes alone."
Don't confuse Evolution and Abiogenesis. Also, false.
"Creationism simply states that the odds of natural processes causing a proto-bacteria to evolve into all life on the planet including humanity are effectively zero."
Effectively zero(which is disputed) != Zero.
"in other words, it must be an intelligent cause."
So far this is your argument:
1) It is unlikely life was created via natural causes (disputed)
2) It is unlikely that early life forms evolved into what we see today (false)
Therefore 3) Life was designed and created by an intelligent being(s).
Not exactly the zenith of reasoning.
"If you think that Intelligent Design is not science, then you don't know what you're talking about."
What predictions does Intelligent design make? What positive empirical basis does intelligent design have? - shadowmoose, on 05/26/2008, -10/+69I'm so thankful that I went to a school that didn't have these crazy teachers. I feel sorry for their students.
- allaboutdatiki, on 05/26/2008, -11/+66one state, two state
red state, blue state ... - Drahkar, on 05/26/2008, -4/+52And people wonder why the US is falling behind in the Scientific Arena. Its because the Religious Groups are pushing their agenda onto everyone else and its killing us on every front its getting ahead in.
- Fordi, on 05/26/2008, -5/+51Bollocks. ID has no supporting evidence. Evolution has enough supporting evidence that it'd take you a lifetime to read and analyze.
You're buried for being willfully ignorant. - sleepyjjk, on 05/26/2008, -5/+50I think teaching alternative viewpoints with weak evidence is naive and stupid.
What if science teachers were to teach alternative viewpoints on astronomy - such as the alternative viewpoint that the Sun revolved around the earth and other planets revolved around earth with epicycles? People would immediately see that it would be stupid to introduce these ideas to a physics or astronomy classroom. Alternative viewpoints such as creationism should not be introduced in a biology classroom. - inactive, on 05/26/2008, -22/+5624000 people die EVERY DAY from hunger or hunger-related causes, 74% of them are children.
About 800 million people haven’t enough food to eat at this very moment
5700 Africans die EACH DAY of Aids
We have Cancer, Aids, Polio, Yellow Fever, Influenza, Spanish Flu, Measles...
Billions and Billions of people will supposedly burn in "hell fire" for all time because they don't believe in the equivelant of Santa Claus
Yeah, some "Intelligent Designer"
Believe whatever you like, but if you want me to believe it then provide evidence or expect mockery and ridicule. Do not expect polite debate. Religion has been given too much liberty to murder and enslave humans while hidden in the garb of "Faith". It and whoever believes it does not deserve to pick the fecal matter from my ass. Politeness is out the door by far by now. I don't give a damn what brand of ***** anyone believes until those beliefs begin to turn into laws and campaign platforms, you've overstepped the boundry separating church from state.
Thats what happening in this country. Don't expect politeness, Nutbars. - SyntraFTW, on 05/26/2008, -12/+45So have they heard of the separation of church and state?
- zephc, on 05/26/2008, -4/+37You don't need faith to think something is true when you have evidence.
- rpebble, on 05/26/2008, -2/+34Eight in eight biology teachers should have a college degree in biology.
- zephc, on 05/26/2008, -0/+31Empiric, this is your 10th grade Bio teacher here: You retroactively get a F.
- mybbq, on 05/26/2008, -2/+31As a current student in a Private Catholic High School (which is very religious). We are taught Darwin and evolution, and the pretty much all the students that my Biology had went to the side of evolution. Course they didn't disregard creationism. Evolution is a very good scientific theory backed up off of a lot of facts, so I can't dismiss it. But within my high school there are a lot of people that don't believe God or rather most of them are agnostic. Students today do question teachers (especially religion teachers) about the world and whats around us. Just because a teacher teaches something that isn't I guess "based on a lot of facts" doesn't me the students all believe in it.
And in truth I think this is the least of our worries within the US ( I will admit that the church has gotten into things that they need to stay out of and I would like to apologize).
In summary:
Do not think the students will believe it just because they are taught it.
And yes I do believe in God, so digg me down if you want.
Just my two cents =/. - Daz3, on 05/26/2008, -4/+30Validity doesn't mean a whole lot if the premises of the valid argument are false or meaningless.
- Obzerva, on 05/26/2008, -0/+24I belive the biological definition of species applies in this case. If you don't know it, then stfu.
- ANT1138, on 05/26/2008, -8/+32Shortest and easiest Biology class ever! "God said let there be — and it was good. On the 7th day he took a nap. Good luck on your finals."
- Fordi, on 05/26/2008, -2/+26"This is a very good thing since science itself has shown that there is no statistical way for life on this planet to have evolved"
Patently false. Statistics has little to do with it, as evolution is random inputs process with deterministic outputs, not a zero input process with random outputs.
"much less come about via abiogenesis"
Different subject, but it's been shown to be likely.
"Creationism simply states that the odds of natural processes causing a proto-bacteria to evolve into all life on the planet including humanity are effectively zero."
... then insists upon a sky daddy, who is *actually* statistically impossible.
"Now, before you atheists go nuts, know that this intelligent cause does NOT have to be God...but God would certainly fit the bill."
Cop out for legal reasons. Besides, you used the term "creationism".
"If God is found to be needed"
God is never "found to be needed". Positing a designer does not aide predictability, and thus is useless in science.
"If you think that Intelligent Design is not science, then you don't know what you're talking about."
You need an education. Or something. That you actually believe this is tantamount to stamping 'IDIOT' o your forehead. - WoollyMittens, on 05/26/2008, -2/+24The bible is NOT a science book. EVER.
- Daysofclark, on 05/26/2008, -12/+341 in 8 for Creationism
what's the ratio for Alchemy or Astrology... - sparql, on 05/26/2008, -2/+23There is in fact a lot of evidence to prove evolution. There is plenty of fossil evidence of transitional species, there are observed case of evolution in living creatures etc. Additionally, why are Christians so scared of evolution? Evolution does not disprove God. I mean with all the stupid ***** you believe in already, why can't you believe god created creatures that evolve?
- ArchangelZLT, on 05/26/2008, -3/+24I want to say "don't feed the trolls", but seems like I'm stunned that trolls today can ignore facts to this extent.
- Shuukyoku, on 05/26/2008, -4/+25Questions kill faith. Because faith is relegating yourself to willful ignorance, an acceptance of not knowing how or why but simply accepting that the preconceived conclusion you've concocted will work out in the time after you've already wasted the one life you get packing your spiritual baggage for the next. This is how the Christian delusion works. Its really not about believing in God, its about believing that one book can tell you everything you need to know. Its about having the instruction manual that we all wish we had coming into this big scary world.
Your facts simply don't jive with their instruction manual. - Anpheus, on 05/26/2008, -4/+25Stevanoski is a troll, don't feed him.
- Kyrgizion, on 05/26/2008, -2/+22I tend to notice that those toting the "you have no idea how complex the concept of God is, so you can't disprove ID" are actually the ones suffering shortsightedness and intellectual famine. THEY are the ones who cannot seem to comprehend the magnitude and scope of time before us, and the immense, almost impossible-to-comprehend vastness of different possibilities that eventually culminated into what we are today. They seem to think we had to just pop into existence, since the changes brought about by evolution are too gradual for them to accept as valid - even though they are.
- SyntraFTW, on 05/26/2008, -1/+21No no no, I'm saying religions in general.
- PrintScrn12, on 05/26/2008, -0/+20You mean teach it in history class? That may well be a valid point.
- Morghin, on 05/26/2008, -6/+26That's some scary *****. Good luck, US!
- Kyrgizion, on 05/26/2008, -7/+27Oh, and there we go again with the "But the devil made fossils look like they were millions of years old, you're all being fooled" rhethoric, as well. Always cracks me up.
- santaliqueur, on 05/26/2008, -3/+22That physics teacher you had was not a physics teacher, he was simply acting as one.
- inactive, on 05/26/2008, -3/+22You think you're original with that ***** line of thinking? "Oh, they're both equal". Well, no they aren't ***** equal, and evolutionary theory is indeed supported by "cold, hard, tangible facts". Tons of them.
If you sit on that fence too long, you'll get splinters in your ass. - sparql, on 05/26/2008, -1/+19I think most people are OK with kids being aware of creationism, it just doesn't belong in a science class.
- Fordi, on 05/26/2008, -2/+19Dugg up. Period. I will home school before I allow my kid to get infected by this kind of stupid.
- ArchangelZLT, on 05/26/2008, -2/+19I hate it when creationists shout out, "nooooo evolution is HIGHLY UNLIKELY therefore creationism is right". Highly unlikely? Prove it to me. And don't tell me "scientists has opposed evolution". That, my friend, is your beautiful dream.
By the way, when the theory of the solar system is founded, religious bigots not only opposed it, but even sentenced a bunch of scientists to death. Seems like people forget history really fast. - Fordi, on 05/26/2008, -0/+17"Species" has an exacting definition, number one.
"demonstrating plausibility of a complex systemic change within the required one generation of chance to survive."
You fail to understand incremental change, number two.
Macroevolution is a word invented by creationists to create an arbitrary goal post they can move at will, number three.
Basically, man, you fail at bio. - Fordi, on 05/26/2008, -2/+19He's Jimmy Spaza. He's serious like cheeseburger and about as smart.
- ArchangelZLT, on 05/26/2008, -3/+20Creationism HAS a place to be teached. It's called theology class. What more do you creationists want? Twisting theology with science? We'd better teach English on a physics class, or teach chemistry on a football class. In short, it simply does NOT belong to there.
- mrsteveman1, on 05/26/2008, -1/+17And yet here we are, having a debate about teaching something that isn't even a ***** valid theory, in SCIENCE CLASS. Do you not understand that by definition, creationism is not ***** science? It is a fictional story, based ENTIRELY on parts of the bible, a book that has been arbitrarily revised, cut up, added to, and otherwise edited to the point that i don't even hold much value in it as a historical text anymore.
Just because a large number of idiots think their religious beliefs are more important than discoveries based on evidence, doesn't mean those idiots should be allowed to corrupt the education system with their ***** crap.
If you want to teach religious FICTION, do it in theology class.
Its also quite absurd to say that we were able to land on the moon despite people being taught creationism, one thing has little to do with the other, and isn't a valid reason to continue teaching fictional stories in science class. - sleepyjjk, on 05/26/2008, -2/+18Science isn't dependent on faith - it is dependent on evidence.
- pixelsoup, on 05/26/2008, -1/+16I don't mind the discussion, except the primary proponents Intelligent Design believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
therefore: gtfo of public schools. - Amezis, on 05/26/2008, -3/+18"Creationism simply states that the odds of natural processes causing a proto-bacteria to evolve into all life on the planet including humanity are effectively zero"
I have a dice. I throw it 15 times. The combination is 1-5-3-6-1-3-6-1-1-6-2-2-1-6-1. The chances of getting that combination is about 2 to 1,000,000,000,000, which is effectively zero. Even if the probability is close to zero, it doesn't mean that it's impossible. So your argument is a straw argument.
"If you think that Intelligent Design is not science, then you don't know what you're talking about."
ID is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. You can use any evidence that support evolution, and make it support ID too by saying that "that's how the designer made it" - you can say that for ANY evidence - thus the theory is not falsifiable. A scientific theory must be falsifiable - ID is not falsifiable, and therefore isn't a scientific theory.
That being said, ID COULD obviously be true - there may indeed be a designer who created everything. Despite that fact, it's not science and is therefore not an alternative to evolution, and should not be taught in biology classes (it's not biology either, since biology is a scientific subject). - Fordi, on 05/26/2008, -1/+16You besmirch the term 'Theory'.
It's a 2000 year old fairy tale about how humans became humans. - ArchangelZLT, on 05/26/2008, -2/+17Oh good, continue to live in your dream of "not a speck of evidence to back up evolution". I know a guy who claims he falsified the theory of sets, and despite being questioned by tons of math experts, he still live in the dream of "not a single expert opposes his conclusion". You two are basically the same.
- Coolmatt49, on 05/26/2008, -0/+15Religion ≠ Evolution
- Fordi, on 05/26/2008, -2/+16The thing is that evolution isn't even unlikely.
Given a seed replicator, constant energy input (sun), and a few billion years, and barring any planet-destroying disasters, you can pretty much guarantee the rise of complex life. -
Show 51 - 100 of 676 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is