Kentucky Commissioner of Education: Evolution a fact? Not in MY schools.

[Skwim]

Then limit it to ID. ID is clearly not religious, as stated by the religious people pushing it.

ID is the same as creationism. This fact was confirmed in the Dover trial where it was shown that the editors of Of Pandas and People, a creation biased text book, realized that using the term "creationism" would be too much of a red flag and changed the text to read "intelligent design."

 

[Man of Faith]

One good thing about teaching evolution is students can get science and philosophy in the same class! Two for one!

 

[Photonic]

One good thing about teaching evolution is students can get science and philosophy in the same class! Two for one!

Ironic, as they would be learning neither Philosophy nor Science with ID or Creationism.

 

[Viker]

One good thing about teaching evolution is students can get science and philosophy in the same class! Two for one!

Philosophy? :sarcastic

I don't know where philosophy comes in with evolution being taught. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have more philosophy courses.

 

[Iti oj]

The purpose of "public education" is not to educate, but to ensure that the poor will have just enough education to work in factories, be cannon fodder in war, and never rebel against the current government/economic structures that make other people rich.

"Public Education" is run by slaves to produce rowing slaves that don't rock the boat.

And if they do, we can just kill them.

sad but true

 

[Iti oj]

teach realigion in history and other religion classes

 

[Man of Faith]

Philosophy? :sarcastic

I don't know where philosophy comes in with evolution being taught. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have more philosophy courses.

Philosophy is in the science books in the evolution chapter. What happens is the science part starts off with maybe something like this "change in allele frequencies do happen and we see that finches beaks change due to weather patterns and through natural selection creatures adapt to their surroundings and environments.” Then what happens is the book will jump into philosophy without warning the students with something like this, “the theory is that all creatures and man evolved over millions of years through a common ancestor…”

 

[Skwim]

Philosophy is in the science books in the evolution chapter. What happens is the science part starts off with maybe something like this "change in allele frequencies do happen and we see that finches beaks change due to weather patterns and through natural selection creatures adapt to their surroundings and environments.” Then what happens is the book will jump into philosophy without warning the students with something like this, “the theory is that all creatures and man evolved over millions of years through a common ancestor…”

Sounds like something pulled out of some sorry AiG polemic. But obviously you must of read as much. Care to share your source?

 

[Man of Faith]

Sounds like something pulled out of some sorry AiG polemic. But obviously you must of read as much. Care to share your source?

That is not a direct quote or from any article, that was just out of my brain, but of course my information that is stored in my brain has come from many years of research, including AIG, and other creation websites, but also including evolution promoting websites, talk origins, books, articles, and scientific information, and from of course debates.

I have the creation truth locked down in my brain in isolation with all the misinformation and misleading evolution information that comes in routed to dead ends and captured to be dissected and destroyed with God fearing electrical brain impulses full of truth.

 

[Skwim]

That is not a direct quote or from any article, that was just out of my brain, but of course my information that is stored in my brain has come from many years of research, including AIG, and other creation websites, but also including evolution promoting websites, talk origins, books, articles, and scientific information, and from of course debates.

I have the creation truth locked down in my brain in isolation with all the misinformation and misleading evolution information that comes in routed to dead ends and captured to be dissected and destroyed with God fearing electrical brain impulses full of truth.

Understood.

 

[Shermana]

Physics was first dubbed "Natural Philosophy". Just sayin'...

 

[Viker]

Philosophy is in the science books in the evolution chapter. What happens is the science part starts off with maybe something like this "change in allele frequencies do happen and we see that finches beaks change due to weather patterns and through natural selection creatures adapt to their surroundings and environments.” Then what happens is the book will jump into philosophy without warning the students with something like this, “the theory is that all creatures and man evolved over millions of years through a common ancestor…”

Now I get it. What I remember is not them "jumping into philosophy without warning students" but pointing to a transition from earlier natural philosophy to a modern scientific approach which began in Darwin's time. This natural philosophy began to break away to new fields like biology and such. I still think more touch base with philosophy wouldn't hurt students. Ancient philosophers were way ahead of their era.

 

[fantome profane]

That is not a direct quote or from any article, that was just out of my brain, but of course my information that is stored in my brain has come from many years of research, including AIG, and other creation websites, but also including evolution promoting websites, talk origins, books, articles, and scientific information, and from of course debates.

In all your many years of intense research on the topic, have you read one of Ken Miller’s books yet?

 

[Photonic]

Physics was first dubbed "Natural Philosophy". Just sayin'...

Yea, and when people knew enough about it, did it remain a philosophy?

No, because we have methods of actually proving our hypothesis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What part of the constitution says I cannot vote and elect who I like?

Why should someone who clearly has no understanding of the scientific method and the definition of theory even be considered a valid candidate for such a position? No one challenges germs, plate tectonics, gravity, or a number of other things as theory, but their ignorance radiates when they challenge evolution as just a theory. His position is over the education of children, and when he himself does not understand such a simple and very important concept then he should not even be on the ballot to vote for.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No he should be... it is just that all applicants for such a position should have to take a test on the subject matter and their results be open to review by those who might elect them.

 

[Photonic]

No he should be... it is just that all applicants for such a position should have to take a test on the subject matter and their results be open to review by those who might elect them.

Actually, the results should determine candidacy in the first place.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I disagree, being smart or intelligent in regards to a particular subject matter doesn't mean qualified to a particular position and its responsibilities

 

[Shermana]

Why should someone who clearly has no understanding of the scientific method and the definition of theory even be considered a valid candidate for such a position? No one challenges germs, plate tectonics, gravity, or a number of other things as theory, but their ignorance radiates when they challenge evolution as just a theory. His position is over the education of children, and when he himself does not understand such a simple and very important concept then he should not even be on the ballot to vote for.

Plate Tectonics and "Gravity" are in fact challenged by some in the scientific community, though by only a few, with very credible alternate theories. Who is to say that he's ignorant of the subject exactly simply because he disagrees with the Theory of it? What specifically about it is he ignorant about? What does he not understand/ That you're supposed to agree with the grand majority of the "scientific community" concensus no matter what? What specifically about the theory do you propose he does not understand?

 

[Photonic]

I disagree, being smart or intelligent in regards to a particular subject matter doesn't mean qualified to a particular position and its responsibilities

If those responsibilities include said subject matter, there should be a minimum requirement of mental capabilities to handle the subject.