|
Darwin
Dec 1, 2005 9:33:58 GMT -5
Post by Superguiller. on Dec 1, 2005 9:33:58 GMT -5
Ermm, for all you people who are proud of voting republican, I'd like to see what you've got to say about denying Darwin's evolution and seriously telling kids that one day this big shiny guy with a white beard and sandals made people out of mud.
And then you go and say islamic extremism is a BAD THING.
I'm afraid that if george bush gets re-re-elected the world will be flat again and the sun will be spinning around the earth.
Fucking unbelievable.
|
|
|
Darwin
Dec 1, 2005 11:43:36 GMT -5
Post by DixonHill on Dec 1, 2005 11:43:36 GMT -5
George Bush can't get elected again. American presidents can only serve two terms.
where's our bombs?
|
|
|
Darwin
Dec 1, 2005 13:48:36 GMT -5
Post by castlecraver on Dec 1, 2005 13:48:36 GMT -5
The true travesty in all this is when conservative activist community leaders get appointed to local school boards, local legislature, etc and start pressing their "Intelligent Design" agenda to be taught in the schools.
I agree that we should be teaching our children to think critically about science -- and Darwinean evolution is a theory that has evolved some in itself since its first publication. Darwin himself was a very devout Christian, and you can't read two sentences in "Origin of Species" without coming across some invokation of God. He worried himself mercilessly before publishing it about how it would upset the religious establishment -- even delaying it for several years.
But the idea that "intelligent design" is a logical criticism of evolution theory just doesn't hold water. Scientists collect data and interpret what is plainly observable -- and all the information we have tells us that evolution, as we understand it now, is a very sound theory. We can observe it happening directly on a small scale, and have fossil and DNA records as iron-clad evidence for it's happening on a larger scale over millions of years. "Intelligent design," the new euphamism for creationism, however, offers no observable phenomena or presents no testable hypothesis. This flies directly in the face of the spirit and logic of scientific inquiry and shouldn't ever be passed off as anything having to do with science.
Teach it in church if you must, but schools are places for inquiry and discovery, and we as people should never be satisfied with resigning ourselves to a dogma of infinte, uncomprehensible complexity as a rationale for not pursuing a complete, stepwise understanding of it.
|
|