Evolution, Florida Style

[clc]

 

[ekg]

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... 

[uselesslegs]

The slope wouldn't be slippery, except there are people and groups in place, ready to run through the door at full speed if it's opened.

At that point, every "what if" of a non-natural nature would be beating each other senseless to be the next through that door.

I suspect, personally, we'll never know the answer.  The reason being, that it deals strictly in the realm of natural phenomenon and how do you find element X that exists outside of our natural boundaries and containment therein?  Everything we know now and will know in the future is bound by the fabric of our universe...and if we find a "element X", then it is not super-natural...because we found it.  That makes it part of what already existed, not apart from it.

In it's attempt to make sure science doesn't find another source for our possible presence, the religiously inspired science contingent may very well dethrone the omnipotence of their faith....and once you find it, you can't unfind it.

[Howey]

Moving on to Texas:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/texas-bill-would-outlaw-discrimination-against-creationists

Unlike many other states, Texas does not ban workplace discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or marital status. But don't be alarmed; the Lone Star State is working on that whole civil liberties thing. Last week, Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler introduced HB 2454, a bill that would establish new workplace protections for proponents of intelligent design. Here's the key part:

An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.

Ok...let's see if I have this right...

In Texas...

You can fire someone because they're gay.

You can fire someone because they're a single parent.

But if you have a bible-thumping crazed creationist who wants to teach the children of Texas that the earth really was created 6000 years ago in seven days by a diety who apparently hates gays and single parents, as well as teachers, firefighters, and policemen, then Hey!

The gubmint of Texass has your back!

[uselesslegs]

The second Faux news made it OK to equate how you "feel" as part of otherwise legitimate discourse...the whole dealio turned into a crap shoot.

You don't need to validate, consider, or weigh anything beyond the affect it has on your beliefs or view.  A hunch becomes regular source material and an opinion becomes authoritative.