Texas school to debate the teaching of evolution in schools...

[QUOTE="Famiking"]Evolution does not contradict creationism, there is such a thing called "Evolution creationism" - saying creationism is unscientific may be correct, but whether it's wrong or not is disputable.Genetic_Code

No, AS and A2 is like the end of High School in the UK. University is like American colleges.

[QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="Famiking"] And which type of creationism would that be? And it's not excising, it's giving an option, if we're suppose to learn something that would benefit us, even it's in the slightest, why don't we just teach everything there is to know in school?

Famiking

Quantum physics explains the Quantum world while Newtoninan physics/General Relativity doesn't. They are not compatible which is why scientists and physicsts are currently searching for a TOE (Theory of Everything)

BumFluff122

I dont think it belongs in the science classroom - if the scientific process isnt involved why should it be in a science classroom (also we cant regulate what a private religious school teaches to its children). But if you read the article, a direct quote is that we need to "teach our kids to think like scientists..." and teach them creationism. :| How does that even work?p2rus

Here's an interesting video by a Texan who... well... isn't amused by this. :Pzakkro

That was awesome.

[QUOTE="p2rus"] I dont think it belongs in the science classroom - if the scientific process isnt involved why should it be in a science classroom (also we cant regulate what a private religious school teaches to its children). But if you read the article, a direct quote is that we need to "teach our kids to think like scientists..." and teach them creationism. :| How does that even work?Famiking

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Quantum physics explains the Quantum world while Newtoninan physics/General Relativity doesn't. They are not compatible which is why scientists and physicsts are currently searching for a TOE (Theory of Everything)

Hoobinator

Classical Mechanics (Newtonian Physics) - Classical mechanics is used for describing the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies. It produces very accurate results within these domains, and is one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology.

Quantum Mechanics - Quantum mechanics is a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems at the microscopic scale (at the atomic level).

From what I know about the beliefs of Classical mechanics it is a starting point. You don't just jump right into Quantum Mechanics as it is inheritantly very hard to understand. Quantum mechanics is based on probability while Newtonian physics is based on movements of non-quantum objects.

The only "other idea" regarding the way we came to be isn't even science. The result of Kitzmiller v Dover said so, and the reigning judge didn't even believe in evolution.scorch-62

I think schools should teach evolution but they should point out, that this in know way proves that God doesn't exist and God could have simply worked using evolution, instead of teaching where it makes it seem like it disproves God. When it doesn't. ferrari2001

I think schools should teach evolution but they should point out, that this in know way proves that God doesn't exist and God could have simply worked using evolution, instead of teaching where it makes it seem like it disproves God. When it doesn't. ferrari2001

]

Classical Mechanics (Newtonian Physics) - Classical mechanics is used for describing the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies. It produces very accurate results within these domains, and is one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology.

Quantum Mechanics - Quantum mechanics is a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems at the microscopic scale (at the atomic level).

From what I know about the beliefs of Classical mechanics it is a starting point. You don't just jump right into Quantum Mechanics as it is inheritantly very hard to understand. Quantum mechanics is based on probability while Newtonian physics is based on movements of non-quantum objects.

BumFluff122

And I already stated that in my first post. Quantum mechanics works on a probability based system, whilst Newtonian physics as we understand it today, is an approximation of what we believe to see happening in nature and the world around us. Quantum physics explains phenomena at a sub-atomic level. Just because a theory is hard to understand doesn't make it any less true.

Even though Quantum physics is still in its infancy so to speak, it explains phenomena (occurrences, nature etc) very precisely. There's nothing stopping anyone, (apart from the difficulty) of teaching Quantum physics and how nature works on a sub-atomic level over that of Newtonian physics, which is after all an approximation. Which is what my original point was.

Well evolution is a scientific theory - just like cells and gravity and newtons laws etc. It COULD be proven wrong, but at this point the scientific process has pointed at evolution and said well this is what makes sense, this is what we think has happened... allowing creationism to be taught in science class would be like teaching spontaneous generation (maggots are created when you leave meat out... they just grow out of the meat!)p2rus

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]I think schools should teach evolution but they should point out, that this in know way proves that God doesn't exist and God could have simply worked using evolution, instead of teaching where it makes it seem like it disproves God. When it doesn't. Vandalvideo

I don't even know how anyone can deny evolution anymore, the evidence in its support is staggering.

The American education system is struggling, and things like this definitely do not help.

[QUOTE="Famiking"][ So why is enforced? .Vandalvideo

(Science shouldn't be part of some national "standard". IMO only survival skills (basic math, reading/writing and basic science) should be).

Here's an interesting video by a Texan who... well... isn't amused by this. :Pzakkro

AronRa is great, I have listened to all his videos :)

To Texas: You guys are **** backwards... we are in the 21st century now stop putting religious beliefs before science! Also, stop trying to put religion is the science class.

[QUOTE="zakkro"]Here's an interesting video by a Texan who... well... isn't amused by this. :PDarth_Tyrev

That was awesome.

And I already stated that in my first post. Quantum mechanics works on a probability based system, whilst Newtonian physics as we understand it today, is an approximation of what we believe to see happening in nature and the world around us. Quantum physics explains phenomena at a sub-atomic level. Just because a theory is hard to understand doesn't make it any less true.

Even though Quantum physics is still in its infancy so to speak, it explains phenomena (occurrences, nature etc) very precisely. There's nothing stopping anyone, (apart from the difficulty) of teaching Quantum physics and how nature works on a sub-atomic level over that of Newtonian physics, which is after all an approximation. Which is what my original point was.

Hoobinator

Evolution isn't anthiesm. Evolution is science.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] I never said incorporate religion, I just said mention the fact that it in no way disproves God. The way it's taught now, unless you have someone tell you other wise your pretty opt to believe God doesn't exist because of evolution which is simply not true. Even a simple, "Evolution is merely change over time, and it can be incorporated in with religion" would do. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] You are incorporating religion by mentioning it in a science class. Just leave GOd out of a science class room altogether. We shouldn't have to coddle uppity religious folk because they feel insecure.p2rus

I'm NOT TALKING about the science. I'm talking about the way the teachers presents the content that makes it appear that evolution proves God doesn't exists.

ferrari2001

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Then you should leave atheism out of the classroom as well, which is what they are doing right now. It's not right to push atheism more than religion. If your going to make it sound like God doesn't exist you should at least have the curtousy to mention that the theory doesn't disprove anyone's religious beliefs. ferrari2001

sorry to but in, I have never experienced that once in a science classroom, and teachers should not have to bend over backwards to make creationists happy.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] I'm NOT TALKING about the science. I'm talking about the way the teachers presents the content that makes it appear that evolution proves God doesn't exists.

p2rus

I want schools to show kids how to think for themselves. Being taught evolution is fine, just encourage the children to look into it themselves in more detail then school teaches.

to those people in texas

evolution = FACT

deal with it

legend26