Schools teach science because it doesn't outright say people are wrong, so it doesn't conflict with anybody else's ideas. Most other ideas don't like it, but that's their problem. See, that there darn ol' constitution says you can't **** with people because of their ideas.. so teaching the christian way as the actual way in a public school is unconstitutional. Just like for the cree way, or the olmec, or the hindu, or the buddhist.. Shouldn't matter, I mean, what's all this redundancy stuff, anyway? The only reason I can conclude anybody would want to waste time and taxes on re-teaching sunday school, is that they don't take their kids to their place of worship.
I can totally agree that scientific answers to existence and other abstract issues not be taught as the right answer. It's totally unscientific.
I know this has been covered way to much, but it doesn't seem to be clicking yet. "Theory" is constantly being misused in those passages. It does not (repeat: DOES NOT) mean inarguable doctrine. Filling in blanks, making inferences, coming up with extrapolations based on data, that's what makes it a theory, and until that theory can be demonstrated as true beyond reasonable doubt (since being of a fallible mind means there will always be a possibilty that such things aren't true), it remains speculation. Theories are subject to change, and as such, they can't be handled like holy scriptures, which don't change--or at least, aren't supposed to.
I.E. pointing out "This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwinâs Theory" as a flaw in evolutionism instantly labels you an idiot.
Use of such a point as an argument brings up the tidbit that reality is not boolean. If a theory comes up false, it's human nature to assume the opposite (or perceived opposite) is therefore true. If evolution wasn't the cause of life as we know it, the JudeoChristian god doesn't suddenly get credit.
There are conceivably an infinite number of ways to end up where we are, only one of which happened. Yes, past tense. As in only one sequence of events got us here, and therefore only one theory can be entirely true. It's possible to have some things right, it's possible to be almost right, it's possible to be so far off the mark, light coming from it won't reach you. No way to tell at this point if even one iota of existential truth has even been thought of, let alone written down. One (the number of actual event sequences) divided by infinity (the number of possibilities) is a real small number. No sane gambler would bet on something with that kind of probability. Now, since the current tally of existential theories can be recorded with less than five digits, a complete set of options is not present, hence the odds any given one is totally true grow smaller still. Evolution isn't that easily written off, however, as the process itself is real and undeniable. It's simply not possible to deny the current existence of evolution (and remain credible), as it's so commonplace as to rule nonconformities exceptions rather than the proverbial rule (like stuff falling when it's dropped). That's not an issue up for debate. It's an evolutionary beginning to life that's being refuted.
The whole bible being true is less likely (many million times less likely) than only the part about how life began being true. Less conditions to validate, higher chance of being right; simple enough. Evolution being the start is more likely than the descriptions on the first few pages of genesis, since it can be demonstrated consistently at present, whereas deities are really unreliable in that department. The increased odds of veracity are because something which can be demonstrated has a full hundred percent probability of being possible with current conditions. Past conditions are similar to present ones (similar enough to generate a concept of wordly stasis), and thus things which can happen now were about as likely then.
I should probably revisit the beginning to all that probability stuff, as one crucial aspect didn't quite get enough explaination. Only one event chain being an actuality was brought up, and it's an important concept to understand, in that probability has absolutely no effect on anything. One thing happens, the liklihood of the potential events doesn't make one get dibs on being true. I could eat tea out of the box until I vomit and use the arrangement of the regurgitated leaves to devise a new religion (without any form of divine communication or influence, just so the tea leaves are properly random), and it could be entirely true (not limited to the genesis portion). That it was so blasted improbable compared to the ideas of say, shinto, had no bearing on it's verity.
::PostScript::
I would like to point out that some of those anti-evolution quotes are formidable challengers for the title of the funniest thing I have ever read. Somebody actually thinks that stuff is solid. Oh man.. I made a few magic tricks I'm going to perform in Vegas based on the principles they used. Should be a real hit.
I can totally agree that scientific answers to existence and other abstract issues not be taught as the right answer. It's totally unscientific.
I know this has been covered way to much, but it doesn't seem to be clicking yet. "Theory" is constantly being misused in those passages. It does not (repeat: DOES NOT) mean inarguable doctrine. Filling in blanks, making inferences, coming up with extrapolations based on data, that's what makes it a theory, and until that theory can be demonstrated as true beyond reasonable doubt (since being of a fallible mind means there will always be a possibilty that such things aren't true), it remains speculation. Theories are subject to change, and as such, they can't be handled like holy scriptures, which don't change--or at least, aren't supposed to.
I.E. pointing out "This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwinâs Theory" as a flaw in evolutionism instantly labels you an idiot.
Use of such a point as an argument brings up the tidbit that reality is not boolean. If a theory comes up false, it's human nature to assume the opposite (or perceived opposite) is therefore true. If evolution wasn't the cause of life as we know it, the JudeoChristian god doesn't suddenly get credit.
There are conceivably an infinite number of ways to end up where we are, only one of which happened. Yes, past tense. As in only one sequence of events got us here, and therefore only one theory can be entirely true. It's possible to have some things right, it's possible to be almost right, it's possible to be so far off the mark, light coming from it won't reach you. No way to tell at this point if even one iota of existential truth has even been thought of, let alone written down. One (the number of actual event sequences) divided by infinity (the number of possibilities) is a real small number. No sane gambler would bet on something with that kind of probability. Now, since the current tally of existential theories can be recorded with less than five digits, a complete set of options is not present, hence the odds any given one is totally true grow smaller still. Evolution isn't that easily written off, however, as the process itself is real and undeniable. It's simply not possible to deny the current existence of evolution (and remain credible), as it's so commonplace as to rule nonconformities exceptions rather than the proverbial rule (like stuff falling when it's dropped). That's not an issue up for debate. It's an evolutionary beginning to life that's being refuted.
The whole bible being true is less likely (many million times less likely) than only the part about how life began being true. Less conditions to validate, higher chance of being right; simple enough. Evolution being the start is more likely than the descriptions on the first few pages of genesis, since it can be demonstrated consistently at present, whereas deities are really unreliable in that department. The increased odds of veracity are because something which can be demonstrated has a full hundred percent probability of being possible with current conditions. Past conditions are similar to present ones (similar enough to generate a concept of wordly stasis), and thus things which can happen now were about as likely then.
I should probably revisit the beginning to all that probability stuff, as one crucial aspect didn't quite get enough explaination. Only one event chain being an actuality was brought up, and it's an important concept to understand, in that probability has absolutely no effect on anything. One thing happens, the liklihood of the potential events doesn't make one get dibs on being true. I could eat tea out of the box until I vomit and use the arrangement of the regurgitated leaves to devise a new religion (without any form of divine communication or influence, just so the tea leaves are properly random), and it could be entirely true (not limited to the genesis portion). That it was so blasted improbable compared to the ideas of say, shinto, had no bearing on it's verity.
::PostScript::
I would like to point out that some of those anti-evolution quotes are formidable challengers for the title of the funniest thing I have ever read. Somebody actually thinks that stuff is solid. Oh man.. I made a few magic tricks I'm going to perform in Vegas based on the principles they used. Should be a real hit.