ZOMBIE FORUMS

Are you seriously sugesting that subjects that do not agree with the Bible shouldn't be discussed in public schools just to avoid controversy? Because that is an obvious endorsement of a religion.

Don't worry Kashikins, I still love you. XD

I'm not saying they should be removed, just optional. Allow kids and parents who have different beliefs make the free choice. Put Evolutionary Biology into an optional science credit of it's own so people can opt to take it or not, it would still count to a high school diploma but allows everyone free choice. It's really not that hard. I'm not trying to debunk anything, just to offer a solution the endless legal actions that plague our public schools, and ultimately, keep everyone happy. Everyone keeps taking offense to my idea, and I really don't know why.

I had a long and bitter post all written up, but I think I'll link <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12804451.htm">this</a> instead.

Private Christian schools are suing the University of California for not recognizing their 'science' program as a high school science credit. At issue is the creationist text book used to the class. This is a far more interesting case, because:

1. The PA school board was a bunch of redneck idiots. They pushed Evangelical values on other board members, blatantly used intelligent design to teach creationism, and claimed that ID fit the definition of science. Everyone knew they were going to lose.

2. The UC case is based on a first-amendment claim, which has a much better chance to succeed since UC is state funded and it is backed by a number of schools who resent UC's (intrusive) accreditation program.



Also, if all you've gotten out of school is the minimum set of skills necessary to do your job, YOU HAVE FUCKING FAILED AT LIFE ALREADY.

Edit: Speeling.

The problem with this is simple; evolutionary biology in the sense of microevoultion (And, arguably, some amount of macroevolution in the plant species tragopogon) is real, and should be taught. These are principles of life that we can document by observation, and are fairly independent of theory (Granted, the high-end stuff isn't, but we're talking about basics). These things should be taught, and to not teach them would be silly.

The problem is placing the origin of life and macroevolution in the same basket; discrepancies start to pop up. This (To my knowledge) isn't taught in classrooms. And if it is, someone needs to be smacked.[/url]

You might wish to consider the near-infinite array of courses that would be required to keep EVERY religious faction (including the non-Christians) happy.

Then leave all of that in. The part that seems to be the most offensive to religeous Americans is Darwin's theory. If we can splice (pun intended) that from the core curriculum and make it optional, we might reach some sort of compromise.

Although realy any mention of Darwin and evolution sets off the EBIL SECULARIST alarms. Notedly he never said that man descended from apes, just that man and apes may have had a common ancestor. Evolution through natural selection is an observable process, even in humans.

also:that was one hell of a 1337'th post

The thing is is that a large portion of evolution is based off of Darwin's findings and assumptions. There isn't much one can do with evolution without it, as he underlined the basic principles of natural selection with his observations. It's hard to take Darwin out of evolution, and I have a rather strong feeling that ID and evolution are both inflexible when it comes to giving up their figureheads (I can see it now: "I'll trade you Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace for your creator!"). Making it optional would be like making learning about the theory of relativity in a physics class optional because it upset a large number of string theorists, or something as equally absurd as that. Now, making a biology/physics class optional based on the student taking something of equal "value" is fine, but removing that particular content is not... In my opinion, anyways.

So should we also take the Holocaust out of history classes? Lots of people think that didn't happen, too.

Mostly people in the Arabian penninsula, unfortunately. Allowing a theory that requires millions of years of proof optional to students when compared to a fact that happened sixty years ago well into the age of recorded history is an unfair comparison. You seem to have a sliding scale.

What if I don't agree with Algebra, it relies on the false premise of a letter being a number. Letters cannot be numbers. Letters are letters and numbers are numbers. I think that Algebra should be an optional class to take.

And Physics, Relativity is only a theory. Why should I be forced to learn a theory that may or may not be correct?

And since when are you, Marjin, worried about the feelings of others. You've never been worried about the feelings of the single mother making minimum wage when you shout "Destroy Welfare!" You didn't seem very worried about a gay man's feeling when you said they couldn't marry.

I'm sure there are some people you care about. That's not my point, my point is you making and emotional appeal about the feelings of the people involved is hypocritical, because you so blithely write off the feelings of people you happen to disagree with.

How about this? Keep evolution, because it's one of the strongest, best-supported theories we have developed to date on any subject matter ever. And if you want to learn about something else, that's what we have private schools for.

I mean, Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick, you can learn about something and not believe in it. I have 3 years of Bible Class to prove that.

Fixed.

I think Baron said all the important stuff.

A+++ Debater, would read again

Scientific theory === fact.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Read thread for some reasons why.

Not always. If we were to say Maxwells ideas and theories in regards to ether were fact, then our assumptions of electromagnetism, electricity, and a whole slew of other topics would be fundamentally flawed, for reasons we can point out in modern science. The idea of a theory is to provide a line of best fit, not to be true. I'd say that science has no real means to be "true"; if it did we wouldn't have such fragmented views on science, now would we?

Yes, the cat exists in a state of both living and dead. We're of course asuming that the tripple equals is a typo, and doesn't mean something that I don't know of.

That is all I have to add.