Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    21 Dec '15 10:57 / 1 edit
    http://www.wired.com/2011/07/0721scopes-evolution-trial-guilty-verdict/

    Scopes was fined 100 dollars for daring to teach evolution and got kicked for his effort.

    It wasn't till 40 years later the laws in Tennessee were repealed forbidding the teaching of evolution.

    Looks like the anti-evolution idiots are back again.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-back-to-the-future-with-new-anti-evolution-law/2012/04/11/gIQAJb7g9S_blog.html
  2. 21 Dec '15 11:42 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.wired.com/2011/07/0721scopes-evolution-trial-guilty-verdict/

    Scopes was fined 100 dollars for daring to teach evolution and got kicked for his effort. He never even taught evolution, he just volunteered to be a guinea pig to challenge the law.

    It wasn't till 40 years later the laws in Tennessee were repealed forbidding the teaching of evol ...[text shortened]... et/post/tennessee-back-to-the-future-with-new-anti-evolution-law/2012/04/11/gIQAJb7g9S_blog.html
    He never paid any fine and received a scholarship to attend graduate school for his efforts. He never really taught evolution, he just volunteered to be a guinea pig to challenge the law.
    http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm

    According to the new law you are freaking out about, it " encourages teachers to present the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”

    OMG how awful.
  3. 21 Dec '15 12:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    He never paid any fine and received a scholarship to attend graduate school for his efforts. He never really taught evolution, he just volunteered to be a guinea pig to challenge the law.
    http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm

    According to the new law you are freaking out about, it " encourages teachers to present the scientific strengths and s ...[text shortened]... aknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”

    OMG how awful.
    That line doesn't sound so bad, but when you think about it, it is clear that it is intended to give loony fundamentalists a window to bash the theory of evolution by attacking its supposed "weaknesses."

    How many physics teachers spend time in their classrooms "present[ing] the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of the theory of gravity?
  4. 21 Dec '15 12:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That line doesn't sound so bad, but when you think about it, it is clear that it is intended to give loony fundamentalists a window to bash the theory of evolution by attacking its supposed "weaknesses."

    How many physics teachers spend time in their classrooms "present[ing] the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of the theory of gravity?
    I see your point but I don't think you can compare well established laws of physics to the other natural sciences where someone comes up with a bright idea like continental drift, etc. and people look at the strengths and weakness's of the arguments for or against it before accepting it.
  5. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    21 Dec '15 12:44
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    I see your point but I don't think you can compare well established laws of physics to the other natural sciences where someone comes up with a bright idea like continental drift, etc. and people look at the strengths and weakness's of the arguments for or against it before accepting it.
    You don't think 'continental drift' is a well established scientific principle?
  6. 21 Dec '15 12:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    You don't think 'continental drift' is a well established scientific principle?
    I didn't say that.
    At the time it was proposed it was new and argued back and forth. I used it as an example.
    Jebus you like to quibble.
  7. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    21 Dec '15 12:57
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    I didn't say that.
    At the time it was proposed it was new and argued back and forth. I used it as an example.
    Jebus you suck.
    That's how science works. I think it's your understanding of the scientific process which sucks.
  8. 21 Dec '15 12:59
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    I see your point but I don't think you can compare well established laws of physics to the other natural sciences where someone comes up with a bright idea like continental drift, etc. and people look at the strengths and weakness's of the arguments for or against it before accepting it.
    Actually we know that the Newtonian theory of gravity fails under certain conditions, unlike the theory of evolution, where we are not aware of any scenario when it fails. For a theory that is brand new your argument makes sense, but those theories belong on the desks of established scientists and maybe PhD students, not high schools.
  9. 21 Dec '15 13:03
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    That's how science works. I think it's your understanding of the scientific process which sucks.
    Yes analyzing the evidence for and against a new theory is not something a proper scientist would ever do.
  10. 21 Dec '15 13:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Actually we know that the Newtonian theory of gravity fails under certain conditions, unlike the theory of evolution, where we are not aware of any scenario when it fails. For a theory that is brand new your argument makes sense, but those theories belong on the desks of established scientists and maybe PhD students, not high schools.
    I agree.
  11. 21 Dec '15 13:34 / 1 edit
    Let's watch and it will become clear whether we'll have another

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

    on the docket.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    21 Dec '15 13:36
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    I agree.
    Your objection to evolution is, at core, related to your religious believe and THAT has nothing to do with science and you know that full well.

    You talk about teachers being allowed to discuss weaknesses in various theories about how life got here, I bet they never would say, creationism is bogus.
    All they WILL say is, Evolution is very weak compared to oh, say, let's see, Creationism, for which there is ample proof......
  13. 21 Dec '15 13:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Your objection to evolution is, at core, related to your religious believe and THAT has nothing to do with science and you know that full well.

    You talk about teachers being allowed to discuss weaknesses in various theories about how life got here, I bet they never would say, creationism is bogus.
    All they WILL say is, Evolution is very weak compared to oh, say, let's see, Creationism, for which there is ample proof......
    One group or another will always try to force their beliefs on others. Human nature kind of thing. I think it would be fair to teach both as theory at the same time. Of course religious cults will still complain as they want to control what enters the mind of young people. I lean toward there being a god, but I have no proof whatsoever and do not claim a book or series of books is evidence of my beliefs. Of course I am not a member of any religious organizations either. I have not taken a leap in faith in science or religion. What are your thoughts sonhouse?
  14. 21 Dec '15 14:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Your objection to evolution is, at core, related to your religious believe and THAT has nothing to do with science and you know that full well.

    You talk about teachers being allowed to discuss weaknesses in various theories about how life got here, I bet they never would say, creationism is bogus.
    All they WILL say is, Evolution is very weak compared to oh, say, let's see, Creationism, for which there is ample proof......
    WTF are you talking about "my objection to evolution" ?
    Never said I didn't believe in evolutionary theory and I'm not religious at all, quite the contrary.
    You have me mistaken for someone else.
  15. 21 Dec '15 14:10
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    One group or another will always try to force their beliefs on others. Human nature kind of thing. I think it would be fair to teach both as theory at the same time. Of course religious cults will still complain as they want to control what enters the mind of young people. I lean toward there being a god, but I have no proof whatsoever and do not claim a ...[text shortened]... ither. I have not taken a leap in faith in science or religion. What are your thoughts sonhouse?
    There are infinitely many possible explanations for the diversity of life. How would you choose which two to teach?