Thread: Oh, Kentucky, why am I not surprised?

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Because they explicitly want to deny that things can evolve. That's really why they want to teach it in science class. It's a way for them to try and undermine science.

You're dumb and stupid, Let us tell you what to do.

I didn't read the article or most of the thread, but wanted to share my thoughts on teaching the begining of life.

It is the job of public schools to educate out students in fact, yes, but to also make them aware of things, and thoughts within the world. We have no way to prove one way it another hoe life actually began, we have many ideas and theories in how it happened. We can prove that evolution and adaptation do happen. I think schools should focus on what ee can actually prove, that there is life on earth, there has been life on earth, and at some point somehow life started. I think that different sides should be presented to the students, many scientest believe this, a very small group think this different thing, ect. But when it comes to actual proof, we cannot prove by the scientific method how life came to be, as we weren't there to observe it, and it is impossible to recreate the exact situation.

Originally Posted by ab1tar

I didn't read the article or most of the thread, but wanted to share my thoughts on teaching the begining of life.

It is the job of public schools to educate out students in fact, yes, but to also make them aware of things, and thoughts within the world. We have no way to prove one way it another hoe life actually began, we have many ideas and theories in how it happened. We can prove that evolution and adaptation do happen. I think schools should focus on what ee can actually prove, that there is life on earth, there has been life on earth, and at some point somehow life started. I think that different sides should be presented to the students, many scientest believe this, a very small group think this different thing, ect. But when it comes to actual proof, we cannot prove by the scientific method how life came to be, as we weren't there to observe it, and it is impossible to recreate the exact situation.

There are no other sides. Only money, and control.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Nothing in science is ever proven. Theory is the best that we have. The germ theory would be disproved tomorrow if we discovered evidence of demonic possession, for example. Evolution is the only theory that we have for how life changed, and it's a good one. It's supported by mountains and mountains of scientific evidence.

Abiogenesis is by far the better supported of two theories about how life originated on earth, the other being panspermia. Both theories are very testable, and the evidence for Abiogenesis is strong.

Good point on theories, and I will have to look into the ones you mentioned

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

God, it's refreshing to see someone with an open mind.

I always try to, especially in topics like this one. Your ideas might not change mine, but I will try and listen and see your reasoning, thought process, ect. (Unless you're a total dimwad who thinks that soldiers die because there are gay Americans...)