I'm not going to even try to read this entire thread (some of you wrote walls Jesus) but I don't see what's wrong with simply giving people some information on what science thinks to be true. If you like the theory, go with it. If not, leave it. No one is saying "you must believe in evolution" with a gun to your head. This is just science's best guess at the moment. That's why it seems odd to me that this law is being proposed.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
anti-Evolution legislation
- Thread starter Morm
- Start date
- Status
here's a theory for you: threads that are essentially a wafer thin coating over "science vs religion" are all destined for the same fate. in fact i could probably merge this thread with several others and nobody would be able to tell. but i guess i'll leave it open because everyone seems to relish the vitriol
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
And what I (and the bill) are trying to say, is that real people have real questions about what they have been taught by family, friends, religion, TV. I believe (as do the author of the Bill) that the science class is a great place to talk these widely held beliefs. You guys must have had seriously boring science classes. We talked about this stuff all the time and New Haven High School happens to have had a very high rate of academic success. It's not going to melt anyone's brains to discuss theories and beliefs that you guys don't personally happen to believe in.
mattj said:
pot said:
kettle said:
I don't have any beliefs. I don't blindly shunt things. If a concept, hypothesis or theory is supported by evidence I will support it. It is not a "cultural impact" class, it's a fucking science class. There is little wiggle room there- it either is supported by the community of scientists and should be taught or it isn't and should fuck off. Exceedingly simple. Who gives a shit if some wizards don't like the ideas, it has zero impact on the science itself.pot said:
Don't try to assume how I approach interpreting the world around me if you haven't got a clue about science and its process, which you clearly do not. You are mind blowingly hypocritical to impose that on me in such a glib way.
silly monkfish that's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a proposition.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
Lol really now. No beliefs. You approach all of life's events from a purely logical perspective at all times, 24/7. Your entire family, and everyone else you've ever known and communicated with are all atheist scientists, and you've never seen a church before.I don't have any beliefs.
Well, okay. But for the rest of us, we all have heard of things like dragons, and unicorns, and Creation, and Alien Abduction, and crazy stuff like that at one point or another in our lives, and would really like to know what scientific observation has to say about each one.
You can continue reading your encyclopedia now.
the evidence is all there.
This is essentially my last thread 2.0 monkfish but it's always fun for about a week :D
i just wanna point out that in section 1-a i believe it says that science must be taught in science class or something
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
No it doesn't. It clearly says that any teacher that supports evolution will be lynched, shot, burned at the stake, then lynched once more to be certain.
I have biases same as anyone, but I don't believe in shit with no evidence and actively work to remove bias from my life instead of embrace it every sunday. What would me communicating with non atheists have anything to do with my beliefs? Non sequitur. As if people without beliefs are androids, don't be a bigot.
Here is what science says about them: they don't exist as there is no evidence backing them. No discussion in class needed. Savvy?
Here is what science says about them: they don't exist as there is no evidence backing them. No discussion in class needed. Savvy?
Frankly I don't trust a science teacher to be teaching my kids about my religion, for what it's worth.
But they are going to be hella home schooled anyway.
But they are going to be hella home schooled anyway.
I'm all fine with discussion in science class if it analyzes the "settled science" of "Global Cooling Warming Change Climate Disruption Weirding.
Evolution is not the only topic that comes up in science class, after all.
Though again the subject is hard to follow because while the science is settled, the name to describe it is clearly not. Not that they even have a coherent method of collecting relevant data on this particular subject, and you can't find a center for studying climate research that doesn't have "and politics" appended to its name.
But nonetheless, yes, discussion should take place in science class if the methods for gathering data or its presentation are fickle, constantly fluctuating, or entirely inconsistent with each other. Not to mention all the little side issues that come up with instumentation error. That's always a good yarn.
Evolution is not the only topic that comes up in science class, after all.
Though again the subject is hard to follow because while the science is settled, the name to describe it is clearly not. Not that they even have a coherent method of collecting relevant data on this particular subject, and you can't find a center for studying climate research that doesn't have "and politics" appended to its name.
But nonetheless, yes, discussion should take place in science class if the methods for gathering data or its presentation are fickle, constantly fluctuating, or entirely inconsistent with each other. Not to mention all the little side issues that come up with instumentation error. That's always a good yarn.
In starting a silly creationist debate, you all missed the most important point.
How is no government the answer? If the federal government standardizes curriculum and says evolution is real and creationism is dumb, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The problem is when that power falls into the hands of local officials elected by an ignorant local population. The solution to this is bigger government, not less government.
Deck Knight said:
This is the result of 1) democracy 2) conservatism + religion, and you're going to claim this as a victory against the Left?Deck Knight said:
How is no government the answer? If the federal government standardizes curriculum and says evolution is real and creationism is dumb, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The problem is when that power falls into the hands of local officials elected by an ignorant local population. The solution to this is bigger government, not less government.
that's bullshit. that's fucking bullshit. a lot of christians might take every word as truth, and these are the morons who you are constantly whining about, but at the same time a lot of christians realize that a lot of the bible is either bullshit or metaphor. and a lot of christians believe in evolution. you can't just dictate to us what our beliefs are because we are followers of jesus.
that's such a frustrating argument, it seems like it should be some kind of fallacy
also i agree with mattj in general; this is not much more than a useless bill
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
Case in point. I'm a young earth creationist. My pastor is an old earth creationist (and a geologist that works for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources). My worship leader at church is an old earth evolutionist (and also a geologist). Oh well. We're all christians.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
i lolled
And I"m not saying this isn't a useless bill. At least where I grew up and was educated, we already did it this way. Morm and others are saying it's somehow dangerous. I don't see it. It's not there.
not necessarily, christians in this now modern world dont follow every word of the bible because of how our world is now built. i would explain further but that would be going too off topic
I'm dying here
LOL
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
You're only making your side of the argument look ridiculous by slinging mud bro. I do understand though.
Here's the issue.
Firstly, you don't know the first thing about Christians in general, as evidenced by your completely baseless assumptions posted here about it. Secondly, that bill supports scientific discussion in science classes, and does not promote the teaching of Creationism, as evidenced by the plain language in it.
Here's the issue.
Firstly, you don't know the first thing about Christians in general, as evidenced by your completely baseless assumptions posted here about it. Secondly, that bill supports scientific discussion in science classes, and does not promote the teaching of Creationism, as evidenced by the plain language in it.
PURE GOLD
- Status