Texas voting on science textbooks for public schools - evolution vs. creation

[Nancy Ann]

This isn't how information is gained or passed, however. It shouldn't be a part of the educational system in the United States!

 

But all in all, I do understand your point. It's not my intention to turn this into a religious discussion, but to comment on your thoughts here:

 

 

 

I think this shows a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is, and how the scientific method actually works. Although I personally think it also shows a lack of historical knowledge regarding biblical claims, that's not the point I'm trying to make. Discussing the merits of science for the sake of education is really important, and for this reason I think it's vital that we have people who really do know how the scientific method works. The Texas Board of Education simply doesn't have representatives that can do that, clearly, or they wouldn't be voting on adding creationism to public education!

 

Here in America our culture has strong religious beliefs, mostly Christian but other beliefs as well. Majority of people believe that God exists. If this was Sweden or China it may be a different story. I think it's completely reasonable  to allow for this in our education system. 

 

It is fair to teach possibilities or ideas in science. In all science something has to begin as something that is not a fact or theory. ID and Creationism are still a popular belief and there is some credence to it. Those who believe in ID and Creationism are not morons! Taking a few days to discuss this in a classroom is healthy, good and creates a well rounded and balanced education. 

 

It could be that Texas is going about this all wrong, but the idea that Creationism and/or ID have no place in public school education system is incorrect in my opinion. 

 

ETA: It is true there are many theories of how the world came to be, especially when you add in religious theories. I don't think we have to share all the different ideas, certainly not in science class. That would be something for a world religions class to undertake. But, here in America, God is quite relevant and Him creating the world is still a very strong and relevant thought. It makes sense to teach it in science class. If you lived in China how much American History are you going to get? Education is geographical and cultural and relevant to the time whether we agree with the time and culture we are in or not. 

[chiguirre]

I was told whales were created this way in order to test our faith. 

See, this argument is irrefutable by science or philosophy. If Christians used this argument to justify belief in the Genesis account of creation, I'd have a lot more respect for their intellectual rigor. Of course, it does beg the question of what kind of god actively endeavors to deceive his creatures, which is probably why it's not often used even though it is irrefutable. 

[albeto.]

Here in America our culture has strong religious beliefs, mostly Christian but other beliefs as well. Majority of people believe that God exists. If this was Sweden or China it may be a different story. I think it's completely reasonable  to allow for this in our education system. 

 

It is fair to teach possibilities or ideas in science. In all science something has to begin as something that is not a fact or theory.

 

If a creation myth doesn't hold to any scientific scrutiny, for what reason is it appropriate to incorporate into a scientific class? Creationism fails as a scientific hypothesis, regardless of how familiar the Christian story is. The possibilities and ideas in science class should revolve around science. I can see religion being discussed as a failed explanation of the natural world, but beyond that, what's the point? 

 

ID and Creationism are still a popular belief and there is some credence to it. Those who believe in ID and Creationism are not morons! Taking a few days to discuss this in a classroom is healthy, good and creates a well rounded and balanced education. 

 

It could be that Texas is going about this all wrong, but the idea that Creationism and/or ID have no place in public school education system is incorrect in my opinion.

 

There exists no credible support to the creation myth as a viable explanation of the natural world. This claim has been debunked a long time ago. Your sources are out of date, and misleading.

 

But, here in America, God is quite relevant and Him creating the world is still a very strong and relevant thought.

Nevertheless, it is not a relevant explanation of the natural world. It is not a relevant scientific topic. Its value in the science class is limited to failed hypotheses, such as flat earth and spontaneous generation, and the strength of the scientific methodology for the purpose of understanding the world.

[SunnyDays]

Unless that's Schrodinger's cat!

 

;)

No, we know that Schroedinger's cat was in the box. We just don't know whether he's alive...

 

:leaving:

[nmoira]

We could turn this thread into an homage to SMBC:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2524

 

 

[TXMomof4]

I was told whales were created this way in order to test our faith.

That argument makes me furious. That would mean God is deliberately misleading his believers. Which is the same thing as a lie. Nope - not the God I believe in.

[Guest submarines]

That argument makes me furious. That would mean God is deliberately misleading his believers. Which is the same thing as a lie. Nope - not the God I believe in.

He is not the God who tests people's faith? Really??

[justasque]

Here in America our culture has strong religious beliefs, mostly Christian but other beliefs as well. Majority of people believe that God exists. If this was Sweden or China it may be a different story. I think it's completely reasonable  to allow for this in our education system. 

 

It is fair to teach possibilities or ideas in science. In all science something has to begin as something that is not a fact or theory. ID and Creationism are still a popular belief and there is some credence to it. Those who believe in ID and Creationism are not morons! Taking a few days to discuss this in a classroom is healthy, good and creates a well rounded and balanced education.

 

It could be that Texas is going about this all wrong, but the idea that Creationism and/or ID have no place in public school education system is incorrect in my opinion. 

 

ETA: It is true there are many theories of how the world came to be, especially when you add in religious theories. I don't think we have to share all the different ideas, certainly not in science class. That would be something for a world religions class to undertake. But, here in America, God is quite relevant and Him creating the world is still a very strong and relevant thought. It makes sense to teach it in science class. If you lived in China how much American History are you going to get? Education is geographical and cultural and relevant to the time whether we agree with the time and culture we are in or not. 

 

How, practically speaking, do you see this discussion happening, in a classroom where the students come from a variety of religious backgrounds, the teacher may or may not have strong religious opinions of her own (which may or may not agree with Christian Creationism or ID), and where the students are on a tight timeline to learn the material needed for, as an example, the AP bio exam?  Is it appropriate for science teachers, most untrained in religious instruction, to take this on?  Why would you teach Christian religious beliefs in science class, but relegate all other beliefs to World Religions, even though the students are likely to come from a mix of backgrounds and religious beliefs?  Wouldn't this equate to the teacher (and thus the government) appearing to endorse one religion over another?

[Haiku]

I have a question to those who believe in the theory of evolution. Is this solid and clear cut to you, or do you see gaps in the theory that make you wonder? 

 

Evolution is not something you "believe in." It's just what is. Evolution is change over time. It has been demonstrably proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms change over time. It's a fact, and it's what happens. I am not an evolutionary biologist, so I don't pretend to know every nuance of the theory of evolution. But I don't dispute it any more than I dispute that the sun shines on me when I go outside, even if I don't understand exactly how and why this happens (as I am not an astronomer, either).

[momma2three]

We could turn this thread into an homage to SMBC:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2524

 

 

 

I totally did this recently... a friend asked me if I knew what the actual theory was and I was like "um it might be alive or it might be dead and you can't know without opening the box but then it's definitely dead.  I think.  Science!"

 

Yeah, I'll be outsourcing science as they get older...

[Haiku]

ID and Creationism are still a popular belief 

 

The relative popularity of an idea has no bearing on how scientifically sound it is.

 

 

 

But, here in America, God is quite relevant and Him creating the world is still a very strong and relevant thought. It makes sense to teach it in science class.

 

No, it doesn't, because belief in god is religion and science is science. Unless you are arguing that religion and science are the same, which is an argument I doubt that you want to make.

[chiguirre]

How, practically speaking, do you see this discussion happening, in a classroom where the students come from a variety of religious backgrounds, the teacher may or may not have strong religious opinions of her own (which may or may not agree with Christian Creationism or ID), and where the students are on a tight timeline to learn the material needed for, as an example, the AP bio exam?  Is it appropriate for science teachers, most untrained in religious instruction, to take this on?  Why would you teach Christian religious beliefs in science class, but relegate all other beliefs to World Religions, even though the students are likely to come from a mix of backgrounds and religious beliefs?  Wouldn't this equate to the teacher (and thus the government) appearing to endorse one religion over another?

I'd love to see the reaction if science teachers had to teach the story of Gaia and Ouranos. If The Bluest Eye raises such a storm of protest, I wonder how we'd deal with the Greek creation myth?!?

[Haiku]

IMO, if you don't want someone coming to your Sunday School class and expecting you to teach evolution as an alternate idea of how the universe was created, then you shouldn't expect school science classes to teach ID or creationism.

[Haiku]

If The Bluest Eye raises such a storm of protest

 

But The Bluest Eye is pornography, and we all agree that there should be none of that in the classroom!  :lol:

[Nancy Ann]

Creationism is not just Christian, it belongs to the Muslim faith and Jewish faith as well. For me it's a relevant topic to bring up in class and not sure what the big deal is.  To be honest I could careless if they teach it in science class or in history class or in English class. Creationism is relevant and should be taught in schools.

 

I don't see a problem. with taking a few days in a science class to talk about these other ideas. I do see the point that some people have about Creationism as not a science. I obviously disagree and I use the horrific Apologia to teach my kids science. ( permission granted for many of you to go leave the room and throw up if needed) 

 

 

[nmoira]

Creationism is not just Christian, it belongs to the Muslim faith and Jewish faith as well. For me it's a relevant topic to bring up in class and not sure what the big deal is.  To be honest I could careless if they teach it in science class or in history class or in English class. Creationism is relevant and should be taught in schools.

 

I don't see a problem. with taking a few days in a science class to talk about these other ideas. I do see the point that some people have about Creationism as not a science. I obviously disagree and I use the horrific Apologia to teach my kids science. ( permission granted for many of you to go leave the room and throw up if needed) 

 

I'm going to repeat a question I asked earlier in the thread (I fixed the wording a bit):

 

How many kids make it to middle school or high school never having been exposed to their family's creation myth/story of choice? Or, if from a secular family, are unaware of at least one story? *For whose benefit* and for what purpose is information about creationism to be included in a science curriculum?

[albeto.]

I don't see a problem. with taking a few days in a science class to talk about these other ideas.

 

To what end? It's not an accurate scientific model, so why bother?

[nmoira]

And are you really proposing to take *days* to discuss religion in a science class already stressed for time? What would you remove to provide for these days?

[Ipsey]

Creationism is not just Christian, it belongs to the Muslim faith and Jewish faith as well. For me it's a relevant topic to bring up in class and not sure what the big deal is.  To be honest I could careless if they teach it in science class or in history class or in English class. Creationism is relevant and should be taught in schools.

 

I don't see a problem. with taking a few days in a science class to talk about these other ideas. I do see the point that some people have about Creationism as not a science. I obviously disagree and I use the horrific Apologia to teach my kids science. ( permission granted for many of you to go leave the room and throw up if needed) 

 

Then teach it in a comparative religion class. It's NOT science!

[Nancy Ann]

Being ganged up on by atheists and made to feel like an idiot for believing in a loving God is just not how I want to spend my evening. No good comes from discussions like this. People can't share what they truly believe or what they consider to be a truth because others will mercilessly attack them and drag them over the coals until they leave the discussion or they submit to current thought of the day. If I bring up anything or link to anything in this discussion that supports my view it will immediately be refuted and mocked. There is no end to this sort of thing. This is not a polite discussion and sharing of ideas but nothing more than intellectual wanking. 

 

ETA: These discussions are not a test in intelligence but a test of endurance. 

[nmoira]

Being ganged up on by atheists and made to feel like an idiot for believing in a loving God is just not how I want to spend my evening. No good comes from discussions like this. People can't share what they truly believe or what they consider to be a truth because others will mercilessly attack them and drag them over the coals until they leave the discussion or they submit to current thought of the day. If I bring up anything or link to anything in this discussion that supports my view it will immediately be refuted and mocked. There is no end to this sort of thing. This is not a polite discussion and sharing of ideas but nothing more than intellectual wanking. 

 

Please note that not everyone arguing against including religion in science class is atheist.

 

And here I was hoping someone would answer my question. :(

[nmoira]

ETA: These discussions are not a test in intelligence but a test of endurance. 

 

I don't find your arguments compelling. It is not impolite to say so or say why.

[albeto.]

Being ganged up on by atheists and made to feel like an idiot for believing in a loving God is just not how I want to spend my evening. No good comes from discussions like this. People can't share what they truly believe or what they consider to be a truth because others will mercilessly attack them and drag them over the coals until they leave the discussion or they submit to current thought of the day. If I bring up anything or link to anything in this discussion that supports my view it will immediately be refuted and mocked. There is no end to this sort of thing. This is not a polite discussion and sharing of ideas but nothing more than intellectual wanking. 

 

ETA: These discussions are not a test in intelligence but a test of endurance.

Ganged up? We're asking follow-up questions. 

 

:huh:

 

ETA: These discussions are not a test in endurance or intelligence. They're a matter of exploring information. 

[WishboneDawn]

I grew up being taught the theory of evolution and I my knee jerk reaction is to laugh at the idea that creationism could be taught as science. I haven't read anything in depth about evolution since college, but this is what I believe and this is what I teach my children.

 

However, I won't deny that whenever I read about evolution and start thinking about it, the gaps and assumptions always leave me wondering about it. And don't even start me on quantum physics.

 

This said, the idea of creationism has even more gaps and assumptions.

 

I have a question to those who believe in the theory of evolution. Is this solid and clear cut to you, or do you see gaps in the theory that make you wonder?

What gaps there might be are not enough to make me wonder.

 

Imagine taking a chain and lay it across a yard. Go away then come backs years, maybe decades later. Look for the chain. You'll find gaps where it rusted away, broken and missing links, maybe areas where the chain was run over and the broken pieces are scattered but step back and look again and it will be obvious from the intact pieces that there was one a chain that lay across the yard in one piece.

 

Asking about the gaps is like hyper-focusing on one section that has rusted away and refusing to take that step back and consider all the links that still lay on the ground. It would be bizarre to claim that a competent observer couldn't infer that a complete chain once lay across the yard and yet that's what creationists and ID supporters claim all the time.

 

All knowledge is incomplete. We never, ever have all the pieces. But we have reason and logic and rational thought and to claim we can't use that to claim some certain knowledge about the world around us is to argue against even bothering.

 

And again, maybe that's the point. If we can never know anything then we need someone to tell us. How convenient for some of those in leadership positions in politics and religion.

[Nancy Ann]

Ganged up? We're asking follow-up questions. 

 

:huh:

 

ETA: These discussions are not a test in endurance or intelligence. They're a matter of exploring information. 

 

Exploring information assumes you do not already have an opinion and that one is honestly open to another person's ideas. I don't see that here, I see a lot of people playing that, but not actually open to other ideas.  Most here have there opinion and what they think is right or wrong. It's just a matter of who has the talent for debate and strength for endurance to stick it out! 

 

I am bailing out on this conversation because I have nothing of value to add that will benefit anyone. I do not have the endurance to answer all the so called "follow up questions" and all I am left with is to bash to try and relieve some of my frustration, so it's best to bow out now. 

[nmoira]

I wish I could treble like this. :)

 

What gaps there might be are not enough to make me wonder.

 

Imagine taking a chain and lay it across a yard. Go away then come backs years, maybe decades later. Look for the chain. You'll find gaps where it rusted away, broken and missing links, maybe areas where the chain was run over and the broken pieces are scattered but step back and look again and it will be obvious from the intact pieces that there was one a chain that lay across the yard in one piece.

 

Asking about the gaps is like hyper-focusing on one section that has rusted away and refusing to take that step back and consider all the links that still lay on the ground. It would be bizarre to claim that a competent observer couldn't infer that a complete chain once lay across the yard and yet that's what creationists and ID supporters claim all the time.

 

All knowledge is incomplete. We never, ever have all the pieces. But we have reason and logic and rational thought and to claim we can't use that to claim some certain knowledge about the world around us is to argue against even bothering.

 

And again, maybe that's the point. If we can never know anything then we need someone to tell us. How convenient for some of those in leadership positions in politics and religion.

[albeto.]

Exploring information assumes you do not already have an opinion

Not at all. You're making a particular claim (creationism is appropriate in the science classroom in the public school setting). You're having a difficult time defending that claim. That's not a testament to us, it's a testament to the precarious vulnerability of this claim.

 

I see a lot of people playing that, but not actually open to other ideas.  Most here have there opinion and what they think is right or wrong. It's just a matter of who has the talent for debate and strength for endurance to stick it out!

But it's not a matter of talent for debate. If you had a reason to explain why creationism is appropriate in the science classroom in the public school setting, you can offer that without any kind of debating experience. You offered the idea that creationism is familiar, but the follow up question was left unaddressed - in what way is that relevant for the purpose of teaching science? The fact that you don't chase straw men arguments or throw out red herrings or ad hominem attacks speaks positively of your debating skills. I think the problem isn't your ability to argue a point, it's the particular point you're arguing. 

 

I am bailing out on this conversation because I have nothing of value to add that will benefit anyone. I do not have the endurance to answer all the so called "follow up questions" and all I am left with is to bash to try and relieve some of my frustration, so it's best to bow out now.

 Sadly, you're trying to explain something that no one has yet been able to explain. Eventually, all these arguments come down to the one variable of faith. That's simply not acceptable for an education in science. 

[Luanne]

I have to say it, but evolution is also just a theory.  It is not fact based. 

[nmoira]

I have to say it, but evolution is also just a theory. It is not fact based.

Thanks for your insightful input!

[mommymilkies]

I totally did this recently... a friend asked me if I knew what the actual theory was and I was like "um it might be alive or it might be dead and you can't know without opening the box but then it's definitely dead.  I think.  Science!"

 

Yeah, I'll be outsourcing science as they get older...

:lol:  My problem is that I was a Quantum Physics geek in college and so I overthink everything.  The kids will ask me simple questions and I wayyyy overdo it and confuse them x1000.  I thought about having my oldest read The Dancing Wu Li Masters recently because I was her age when I read it, but dh keeps telling me that she would be bored out of her skull. Poor kids!  :lol:

[Rosie_0801]

No, that is not what I'm saying specifically.  What I am trying to convey, not well apparently, is that science has suppressed and does actively try to suppress anyone, be they fellow scientists or professors, etc., who would dare to suggest that the evidence no longer supports Darwinian Evolution but actually is proving to slant more towards intelligent design.  Look at the effort going into suppressing the learning of an alternate theory (ID), which is gaining traction with many biologists/microbiologists, from being included in TX textbooks for heavens sakes.  Heaven forbid we question the status quo.  It's ironic when science is supposed to ask questions and seek truth wherever it may lead.

 

It is incomprehensible to many that there may be a power higher than man.  Our own arrogance shudders at the possibility.  Further, if that higher power is God, and God specifically prohibits and condemns certain behaviors, yet we eagerly participate in those behaviors, then the punishment God says may actually happen to those who actively participate in those behaviors (whatever they may be).  Maybe all our habits and behaviors aren't as banal, acceptable, and innocuous as we think they are.  Maybe there really is a higher power who will judge us according to how we lived our lives.  That is the fear.  The fear of ....what if we were wrong?

 

The Theory of Evolution does not forbid belief in a a creator, you realise? There are evolutionary biologists who believe in a god and evolutionary biologists who don't. 

 

The trouble many people have with Intelligent Design is in order to accept it as a scientific theory, the actual definition of science must be changed. What you are asking is for the definition of science to be changed to include your religious beliefs. It is a big ask, don't you think? To change the definition of science?

 

It is not in the least incomprehensible to me that there might be higher powers than man. There *are* powers at play in the world that humans can't conquer. Good luck breaking the speed of light...

 

[Rosie_0801]

 

I don't see a problem. with taking a few days in a science class to talk about these other ideas. I do see the point that some people have about Creationism as not a science. I obviously disagree and I use the horrific Apologia to teach my kids science. ( permission granted for many of you to go leave the room and throw up if needed) 

 

You seem to be disagreeing that the definition of science is the definition of science?

 

 

 

 

And don't feel I'm ganging up on you. (Though you won't feel anything in particular if you have bowed out because you won't be reading this. ) Science does not prevent anyone believing in deities. You are right, I am not open to Creationism as a viable option but this is about me clarifying your position not about me attempting to believe it.

[kitten18]

Please note that not everyone arguing against including religion in science class is atheist.

 

And here I was hoping someone would answer my question. :(

Yeah, I'm Catholic and I believe God is "in charge" but that has no effect on how I teach, or how schools should teach the science of evolution.

I hate it when all Christians get lumped into YEC.

[Mrs Mungo]

The Theory of Evolution does not forbid belief in a a creator, you realise? There are evolutionary biologists who believe in a god and evolutionary biologists who don't. 

 

 

 

Agreed. There are lots of Old Earth Creationists. 

 

http://www.oldearth.org

[unfrumpable.]

I have to say it, but evolution is also just a theory.  It is not fact based. 

 

Holy h*ll.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

[Caroline]

Holy h*ll.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

Laugh. It's not worth crying over.

[WishboneDawn]

Holy h*ll.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

 

Neither. There's a whole discussion here fill of information on the very point she mentioned and yet she obviously choose not read any of it before posting that. Not worth responding too.

 

This is part of why I can't understand why some homeschoolers who accept evolution use religious or "neutral" science curriculum with tweaking. Yes, you can add evolution to your extra readings but how can you hope to make up for a lack that still leaves so many homeschooling moms and kids so ill-informed about the basics of science that they don't even understand what a scientific theory is?

 

A creationist has some excuse for using Christian "science" resources. I will never understand why non-creationists do.

[DawnM]

Really?

 

I love Depeche Mode. 

 

Everything counts in large amounts......

 

 

Great. Now I can't get Depeche Mode out of my head. I hate Depeche Mode.

 

[redsquirrel]

I have to say it, but evolution is also just a theory.  It is not fact based. 

 

 

So is the Germ Theory of Disease, but I hope you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. Or maybe you don't, because 'its only a theory' that getting poo germs from your hands into your food will make you sick. I guess you take your chances. I accept the facts as presented by science and use soap and water

 

I have been forced to quote myself.  It saves time.

[Haiku]

Being ganged up on by atheists 

 

Atheists are not ganging up on you. People who don't wish for religion to masquerade as science are. ;)

 

Seriously ... not everyone arguing against teaching religion (which is not science) in a science class is an atheist. I happen to be, but I also hold religious views that I imagine most Christians would find ridiculous. That doesn't bother me, and I don't feel the need to insert my religion into public education or science classes. Religion is not science. I don't understand why people can't grasp that.

[unfrumpable.]

Here's a pretty cool group I just discovered on FB:

 

https://www.facebook.com/TexasFreedomNetwork

[Free]

I have a question to those who believe in the theory of evolution. Is this solid and clear cut to you, or do you see gaps in the theory that make you wonder?

Evolution was not taught well when I was in school, but I am fascinated by it, so I re-educated myself as an adult. I find the theory of evolution to be the most simple and elegant explanation for such a diverse set of facts that I feel awed by the minds who first saw this (Darwin and Wallace both using separate sets of data came up with the same explanation).

 

When I first read the statements "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and "Evolution is the overarching theme in biology" I did not understand it. But now I know and I agree and I think it is awesome how much explanatory power this simple idea has.

 

The TOE can be used as a framework to answer disparate questions in biology from "Why do leopards have spots?" to "Why do elephants have trunks?" to the more complex ones like "Why is there love...altruism...intelligence?". I am not saying these questions have been answered, and this is perhaps where the gaps lie, because questions like these are infinite and answers not always easy to find. But we can use the TOE to look for these answers. It provides the framework.

[wapiti]

Yeah, I'm Catholic and I believe God is "in charge" but that has no effect on how I teach, or how schools should teach the science of evolution.

I hate it when all Christians get lumped into YEC.

 

This.  I feel I see this misconception all over the place lately, even in the media from time to time.

 

(...and for anyone interested, my dd's Catholic middle school teaches evolution with secular texts.)

[Cricket]

I think the reality is the belief in the judeo-christian god is not going to be around much longer. It's following the same trajectory as the greek and norse mythological gods, and that makes believers anxious. I think that's why there is such a (desperate?) desire to find some compelling reason to take it seriously, to keep it relevant. It used to be religious believers didn't have to use science to support their beliefs. As information increases, religious theories change. God created fossils to test one's faith. Wait, no, the fossils were a result of the Great Flood. Or wait, the fossils do reveal the age of the earth, but God is the real source of the Big Bang.

 

Well? Which is it? If religion answers the questions about how we got here, why nature looks and works as it does, then what is the answer? If religion can't be trusted to know the answer, and has to keep changing it to keep up with evidence, then in the words of Stephen Fry, "What is it good for?"

The idea of a young earth/creation as expressed today is actually fairly new (and, as pointed out many times, isn't shared by many Christians). Many early church fathers believed in an old creation and honestly I don't know that the topic was even all that important throughout Christian history until recently. I don't know any Christian who believes in a "god of the gaps," where God is only useful for explaining what science can't so I don't really believe that God will be going anywhere soon. As for polytheistic religions, they were replaced by monotheistic ones (which to me shows changes in philosophical thought more than advances in science). Those religions were not replaced by atheism.

[SunnyDays]

This. I feel I see this misconception all over the place lately, even in the media from time to time.

 

(...and for anyone interested, my dd's Catholic middle school teaches evolution with secular texts.)

Yes. We're looking at private school for my DS for secondary, and both of the schools we are considering, both Christian, use secular biology and life science texts. That's important to us. There are others in the region that teach YEC exclusively, and that's one of a variety of reasons we won't consider them.

[melmichigan]

Unless that's Schrodinger's cat!

 

;)

Now I'll go to bed with that song in my head.

[SunnyDays]

Now I'll go to bed with that song in my head.

There's a song??

[Shawna in Texas]

Here's a pretty cool group I just discovered on FB:

 

https://www.facebook.com/TexasFreedomNetwork

Somewhere on their blog, they have the transcript of one of the textbook debates from a couple years ago. Frightening.

[lewelma]

I've been avoiding this thread, but I suppose I should weigh in.  I am an evolutionary biologist.  If anyone is interested in reading about what evolution is and is not, I have run a question and answer session on this thread: "The unscientific american watches a mammal walk into the water and grow fins"
 
Ruth in NZ

[swimmermom3]

I've been avoiding this thread, but I suppose I should weigh in.  I am an evolutionary biologist.  If anyone is interested in reading about what evolution is and is not, I have run a question and answer session on this thread: "The unscientific american watches a mammal walk into the water and grow fins"

 

Ruth in NZ

 

This looks fantastic, Ruth. Thanks.

 

I should have been in bed two hours ago, but am here instead. I had used up my quota of likes by 12:25am. I didn't even know there was such a thing. Thank you all for the excellent read.