I love it !!! They should be required to teach all of the creation theories...Abo, Inuit, Hopi, etc...
Just think, a high school that takes 7 years to graduate from ! Hey, isn't that how long it takes to get out of Hogwart's ????? Hmmm. Thought that place seemed too sinister.
Well said, Sorseress. Creationism is a faith, not a science; therefore, it should not be taught in public schools. While "Intelligent Falling" may be unintelligent, not every Creationist wants to be associated with one who disregards the laws of physics in the name of God.
What disturbs me the most about I.D. and creationism is the complete adherence to cultural relativism.
Both these "guesses" (They are not 'theories' in the true, empiracle scientific sense) are based on the idea that because there is something we don't know, then it must be supernatural in origin.
Basicially, we're the almighty human race, and we are the pinnacle of creation, so if its something we don't know, then it is something way out of our reach. The proponents of both of the aforementioned theories believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the truth, that their view on the reality is what deflines it. The arrogance of our collective race is astounding at times.
Evolution is most likely true. It is an atheistic theory, but not antitheistic. Being a science, it cannot delve into the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Therefore, it exists independently of a creator. ID and Creationism are so interwoven with the concept of a creator that their alternative hypotheses must be that their creator does not exist. This is an equally arrogant notion for any theory even claiming to be scientific for reasons mentioned above. That is what I like about faith - its a personal choice, not something to be proven.
So how are ID and Creationism based in cultural relativism? One states that direct interpretation of the Bible, itself copied and interpreted for centuries into historical and cultural vernacular, is the physical, empiracal truth. This assumption is based soley on a cultural dogma. The other states that, because biological processes are interpreted by some people as "too complex", then some guiding force must be involved. This assumption is based on our technology and scientific level, while which may be advanced still have a long way to go before such blanket statements may be made.
Enough of the Homo sapiens phallus waving. Challenge evolution if we must - no scientific theory should ever become dogma - but let's keep the challenge scientific, and don't let these guys, Ph.D's or otherwise, insult our intelliegence.
A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.
i do remember telling her that i doubted Cephalopods were christians
Most of the time in the classroom, micro-evolution - the development of antibiotic resistance, for example - is accepted, said one teacher. It's the concept of macro-evolution - the study of changes over eons - that sparks objections.
"That's like saying, 'I believe in feet but not miles,"' said Jeff Mitton, chairman of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at CU, who called the case for evolution "indisputable."