Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Um...I was joking. I forgot to insert the [sarcasm] tags.

Apparently I don't quite comprehend the concept?

[barefoot serpent]

ahem...
<----- me too

[KinkyVixen]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Science teachers don't don't teach their opinion, they don't teach religion, either. They teach science.

Maybe that's how it was in your science class Bruce, but in most of mine, that wasn't the case.

[tw]

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

Maybe that's how it was in your science class Bruce, but in most of mine, that wasn't the case.

... which means examples are required to demonstrate what is claimed.

[barefoot serpent]

I'm sorry, but I think that some of this is just simple intellectual laziness:
why should I learn anything about science?... it's much easier to believe that God created all of these mysterious things and that's all I need to care about.

[KinkyVixen]

Originally Posted by tw

... which means examples are required to demonstrate what is claimed.

...which means if you're gonna teach one, you should teach both. Or none at all, like I was saying.

More like superstition than laziness.
It takes a lot of work to keep denying a truth that is staring you in the face.

[KinkyVixen]

Originally Posted by tw

blah, blah, blah, snip...
Be like a monkey. That means I will be superior - god's chosen creature. Clearly I was wasting too much time learning god’s laws that are not in the bible. Foolish me. Even monkeys know better – that man cannot even fly. Why do I waste time learning science when everything necessary to know is already in the bible? Even gallstones can be removed by prayer. Why waste time in a hospital consulting someone trained in science? After all, god tells us so. How do we know? He told Pat Robertson. And clearly god wants man to destroy all those other evil religions - for the glory of god.
snip, blah, blah, blah...

Did I say don't learn science? No, actually i'm pretty sure that wasn't what I said. Go back and read. I have an opinion and can state it. I have no idea what you're saying because all you say is relentless BS about the same thing. Doesn't matter, I didn't read enough of what you said to even argue with you. All I said, in more words was, if you're gonna teach one, teach 'em both, or don't act like a 2 year old and expect everyone else to believe your horseshit.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

if you're gonna teach one, you should teach both. Or none at all, like I was saying.

I'm fine with that, as long as the evolution is taught in a science class, and the creationism/intelligent design is taught in a religion or philosophy class. One of the two is a scientific theory, the other is not.

[Ibby]

Thank you, glatt, thats exactly how I feel too.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

...which means if you're gonna teach one, you should teach both. Or none at all, like I was saying.

What do you mean "both"? If you're talking creation myths, there's at least one per culture on the planet. And they fit very nicely in a comparative religions or philosophy class.

But this isn't science:

[tw]

Ted Koppel would do this when one intentionally did not answer the question. "You did not answer the question so I am going to ask it again":

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Science teachers don't don't teach their opinion, they don't teach religion, either. They teach science.

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

Maybe that's how it was in your science class Bruce, but in most of mine, that wasn't the case.

Originally Posted by tw

... which means examples are required to demonstrate what is claimed.

So where are your examples. Where are your examples of science teachers teaching opinions?

Show us examples of science teachers teaching opinions instead of science. This is so easy if true. So easy that I should not have to ask this again. So show us. Show us examples of science teachers teaching opinions.

[Ibby]

I have had teachers give me opinion in class before...

...But they've always said it was opinion and its never been about something we were actually studying, except in English class.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

Why can't kids be taught both sides, and pick their own?

Science should be taught in science class. You go to a science class to learn science. That's why they call it a science class. If you don't want to learn science, don't go to a science class. If you need a science class for your degree, then there is probably a reason that you need to learn science, and therefore you should probably learn about science while you are in that science class. What was the other "side" to this ???

[9th Engineer]

Bah, I say just cut the whole section out so everyone will stop bitching. It's probably the most useless chapter of the year anyway and not worth the trouble if you ask me. Since we can't even seem to teach 40% of our students to read at a highschool level we have more pressing issues to deal with. Besides, you need to know genetics (and far more than the Mendelian
type) to even begin to understand the principles. I'll admit I'm confused as to why schoolboards feel it's ok to cut atomic theory and (real) genetics out of the cirriculum because 'students just cant handle that level of material (dumbasses), but insist that they are benefiting from a frantic race through evolutionary theory.