Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!
January 27, 2026, 07:12:09 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: WE NOW HAVE A "GRIN" OR "GROAN" FEATURE UNDER THE KARMA.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Evolution, Florida Style

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolution, Florida Style  (Read 1734 times)
0 Members and 92 Guests are viewing this topic.
ekg
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +335/-10
Offline Offline

Posts: 4094


http://www.thevsj.com


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2011, 02:15:11 pm »

So what?

I mean honestly though, why does it have to be narrowed down? It can't simply be presented as: an alternative theory for the initial existence of life is that of an intelligent creator

I'm not talking about a scientific unit on this, as obviously that's not possible... I'm not even sure if it should be TAUGHT, as in tested on, etc. But I'm not opposed to it being thrown out there as a possible solution, since we can't eliminate it as a possibility.

34. Please select all of the theories on the creation of the first primitive life forms:
A. Biopoesis
B. Intelligent creator
C. RNA Crystal development
D. Seeding
E. All of the above

If that was a test question... the answer would be E.

35. The theory of _______ states the first primitive life forms were brought into existence by a knowledgeable creator.
A. Evolution
B. Intelligent Design
C. Biopoesis

36. We have universally-accepted scientific theories that successfully explain the existence of the first primitive life forms.
A. False
B. True

Teaching it as a scientific theory? Of course not. But I will state again: the theory of an intelligent creator is not diametrically opposite of the theory of evolution. Teaching one doesn't eliminate the other. Offering it in a higher level class as a potential solution for the question isn't stamping crosses on everyone's foreheads--it encourages debate and critical thinking.

if it stayed that generic then I can't see a problem with it.. But we both know it wouldn't stay that generic. You can't just teach a 'creator' and not get into a religion.. and a 'faith'..

don't get me wrong.. I believe there was a creator that just created evolution.. but I would be more afraid of the 'slide' if we start allowing just a little bit of faith/religion in science class..

besides, you don't believe the earth is 6000 years old stuff, but too many people do. we know  this to be utterly wrong, and using a 'creator' based lesson plan allows the entry of that kind of thinking/teaching..   

and consider, while you and I haven't eliminated a creator as a possibility, many people have..So I just feel that branch of teaching should be left up to the church...  Undecided
Report Spam   Logged

Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them.  Balance is irrelevant to me.  It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy