Retired Science, Biology, and BioChem Teacher and once burdened with Theocratic SIN just for thinking about sex as a youngster; and about the truth of where everything came from.
p.s. Check out the plight of Jiardano de Bruno, besides the little Galileo you may have seen on TV or possibly in a text book. What do you know of the Crusades? The Inquisition? Of Pope power and abuse? Of Constantine? Of the Essenes? wirtchunts? Diseseases blamed on god? Natural disasters blamed on god? What about DNA? RNA? The Water Cycle? Protein Synthesis? Cellular biology? Comparative Anatomy? Paleontology? Zoology? Chemistry? The Universe? Of the Ecumenical Councils? Of how the Mormons came to be? The Methodists? Have you ever heard of Gilgamesh? Be a believer or die? come on, your not being educated, your being inoculated.

With all due respect
Jen X

Starting right off with an ad hominem attack. “If you don’t agree with me, I’m going to call you names, and the worst one I can think of is Child Abuser”. This is a classic technique to avoid debating the issue. You set up a strawman, and attack it instead of debating the real issue — the fundamental flaws in the theory of evolution.

Perhaps you’re ignorant of the type and scope of curriculum home schoolers engage in? If so, you can be forgiven for the hyperbole and bloviating about keeping kids in the dark. I have a 9 year old. This term we are studying photosynthesis and forestry. Next term we are studying astronomy. Last term we studied protein synthesis, (RNA, DNA, ribosomes, the code for creating amino acids, that sort of thing), before that it was Marine Biology and Estuaries, Electricity and Magnetism, the Sun, Nutrition and how the stomach works, the Eye and how vision works, Rocks and Minerals, and on and on. All of these wonderful subjects are examined with a sense of awe and wonder at the majesty of a good and loving creator, an intelligent designer, who has a glorious purpose for each one of his creations. Contrast that with the atheistic world view which says you’re nothing but a cosmic accident, a mutation. Let me see. Which world view should a caring parent expose his children to? The material is drawn from secular text books. The difference is who gets the credit–God.

>>I think the greatest danger to our Democracy is fundamentalism.

You may have a point. Evolutionists are a new breed of fundamentalist who have dug in their heels, buried their heads in the sand, covered their ears, and go “na na na na na” whenever their fragile beliefs are questioned.

Last night on Charlie Rose, Daniel Dennett spoke about his book, “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”

We know there are all kinds of religions, and within each religion their are different brands. Some of those brands are, as Mr. Dennett, would say rotten religions. He continued to say, all rotten religions survive by imposing forced ignornance on their children.

It is so odd to be fighting a battle in Iraq, trying to open their minds and provide better education, while the opposite is going on here.

Without explanation, I’ve felt for a number of years, our public dialogs have been one-sided. Certain people would not debate ideas, they were closed off. Now we have the explanation, or at least part, the radical religion right interjection into our government and they only work only in absolutes.

Some Republicans like Christine Todd Whitman have been talking about this. Her book is “It’s My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America”

I think the greatest danger to our Democracy is fundamentalism.

I just got through reading a fascinating book called “The Big Bang”, by Simon Singh, which traces the history of Astronomy, the competing theories for the origin of the universe, and the struggles endured by the various proponents of one theory over another. I was struck by the fact that the evidence seems to point to a definite beginning of time and space, and that one of the first things that happened was a massive disbursement of light energy from an invisible speck, and the creation of hydrogen and helium atoms in the same proportion observed in the cosmos today, in essence creation ex nihilo. As Genesis 1:3 says “And God said, let there be light, and there was light.” The more we learn from science the more it seems to corroborate the version presented in the Bible.

I think it’s just a matter of time before the theory of Evolution succumbs to the evidence. The complexity found in the tiniest life forms cannot be reproduced in the lab. The chemical processes are so intricate and the machinery at the subcellular level so exquisite that they are truly breathtaking. They cry out for an alternative to the current theory that they assembled themselves through random chance.

There can only be two possible explanations — there is no God and we are the result of an unfathomably large number of failed mutations or that there is a Creator who set the world in motion and designed the life forms we see today.

To force all children to look at science through the atheist’s microscope is highly offensive, at least to me. In fact a majority of the scientists of the last half of the 2nd millennium were Christians, whose beliefs did not interfere with their pursuit of the truth.

I think the best solution in light of the controversy is to offer students the option of learning science from one or the other or both perspectives. Teachers should be able to teach what’s most comfortable for them, and students should have the option of choosing their teachers. This choice is not currently offered, which might explain why so many are now electing to forgo public education in favor of private or homeschool options. The next best option is to avoid any reference to controversial theories, especially if one is offensive to religious beliefs of another group.

Without these choices, I think the inevitable result will be overreaction from both sides, from Creationists and Evolutionists each trying to force their way on the other. It sounds like the local education community where you worked chose the second option, to omit references to evolution and your choice was to go elsewhere. I don’t see the foul. If you were to stay and force the local school to teach something they didn’t believe in, how does that differ from them forcing you to teach Creationism against your will?

My solution is simple. I home school my children, and outsource the science to a teacher whose views I respect.

It’s a lot easier to call someone who questions your belief system a moron than it is to try to explain how all the information contained in a strand of DNA got there, how the replication mechanism got there (because without replication natural selection can’t begin to work), how life began in the ocean, water, which has a tendency to disperse chemicals rather than to bring them together (and how vast is that ocean!), the list goes on. In order for a theory to be truly accepted by everyone, it can’t hide behind a stream of invective.

I sense that an Intelligent Design or Creationist theory of how the Universe and life originated could be threatening to someone whose epistemology is not rooted in revelation–the revealed word of God. If one’s epistemology begins with a naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena, I can begin to understand such a visceral reaction and lack of tolerance whenever anyone questions the Theory of Evolution. This is the same kind of reaction we saw during the Inquisition. Question the church and suffer the consequences: excommunication, exile, and worse; question the scientific orthodoxy of today, and their high priests, the scientists, and the fate is the same: Loss of tenure, termination, ridicule, etc.

The concepts of Intelligent Design and Creationism are threatening — this line of thinking leads to the conclusion that there is an eternal creator, and perhaps we’re actually accountable to some Higher Power. Now that’s a scary thought.

The really neat part about examining science from this world view is the ability to express a sense of awe and wonder at a Creator who could design such incredible complexity, from the “simple” atom, to the “simple” amoeba, to the vastness of the Universe. Scientists from previous eras called it “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” I say, what a privilge. It truly makes the study of science exciting!

**Franklin Graham, the heir to the empire built up by his anti-Semitic father, Billy Graham, has decided being anti-Muslim is far more financially rewarding than being anti-Jewish.

**Billy Graham, history notes from the Nixon tapes, complained about the Jewish stranglehold on the media and Jews being responsible for pornography.

**Franklin Graham continues to enjoy his father’s unfettered and questionable access to the White House. But in the case of Bush, the younger Graham has a fanatic adherent. Graham has called Islam a “very evil and wicked” religion. He then announces he wants to go to Iraq. Graham obviously sees an opportunity to convert Muslims and unrepentant Eastern Christians, who owe their allegiance to Roman and Greek prelates, to his perverted form of blood cult Christianity.
——–

The Military Industrial Hypocrites Cloaked in Religion and Politics! The Capicoms!

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

I’m most likely just arguing semantics here. I just think in areas of Where did it all begin/where did we come from; ideas are going to constantly change as more data becomes available.

I’m also for teaching “Theories” that have been “Proven False” if only to help open the minds of students. I think if they see how new data is always coming/ideas that once were fact are shown to be silly (The snake charmer was an excellent example) they will continue to look for it. By calling something a “fact” it puts an absolute on it (To me).

T-Rex was known as the most fearsome hunter when I was growing up. Now there is a lot of debate about him being a scavenger and killing pretty much nothing. At the time I was growing up (A while ago) no one could think of a creature that size (With teeth that size) doing anything other than running down smaller prey and taking it out. We have learned a lot since then and the thought of it almost seems silly now (Leg muscles, top speed expected, arm length).

I guess my debate on the subject is teach as many theories as possible, but keep it open ended. I think the argument that the Anti-Evolution crowd is using where they have to explain all of the holes in the theory is stupid though. I think they need to explain that science is a “best guess” always and is going to “Evolve over time” (little play on words there) in the beginning of the class (As in first day of class) and then move forward. Like I said though mainly semantics.

This question has nothing to do with biological evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the observable fact that species evolve. It also explains the bio-diversity in our planet. If the Theory of Evolution were to be falsified, species would not stop evolving -much in the same way that, if the General Theory of Relativity were to be proven wrong, apples would not stop falling from trees. It would only mean that we got our explanation to the facts wrong, pure and simple.

And yes Tundra, the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have so far of the fact of evolution.