Court rules teacher can

[DrunkenBeard]

Face it, if you are hyper-religious, the subjects you should avoid at all costs are science and history.

Exactly, and this goes the other way around. Teachers are supposed to teach science and history and avoid bringing up talk about religion, well not in a personal opinionated way at least. The teacher can of course initiate a debate between the students by inviting believers and non believers to share their opinion on a specific matter and engage in a conversation, but in my opinion he should never involve himself directly by taking sides and bashing the other idea.

[Clirion]

Any high schooler should understand the difference between their personal views and the personal views of their teacher. If not, their parents have failed as parents. Schools MUST employ critical thinking skills and sophomores should be no exception.

Critical Thinking skills do NOT require you to make condesnding remarks of a persons view point. Critical Thinking Skill require you to be able to engage without belittleing someone.

That is Critical Thinking. The statement of your beliefs is not critical thinking.

The example I seee it as.

A science teacher is teaching eveloution. Brings up creationism, (while neither endorsing or denying it) manages to blow holes it. Perfectly accpetable in my book.

A science teacher is teaching eveloution. Brings up creationism, and blows holes in it by calling anyone that thinks it is reasonable, does not know how to think. This is becuase their Bible tells them so. Perfectly unaccaptable.

.

[jakem1]

The fact that there was a man called Ibrahim, the patriarch of the monotheist faiths.

Never heard of him. Can you actually prove this "fact"?

Why on Earth should religion be taught in school?

Religion is a private matter, school is a public one.

I don't think religion should be taught in schools either (allowing for brief explanations in history, literature, etc. where it might come up). However, I was more interested in hearing what Growled had to say. My question wasn't meant to be rhetorical so apologies if it came across that way.

[CyberAngel]

Then this goes the other way around:

a teacher can thus criticize a-theistic beliefs during history (or other courses) as much as they want without being sued.

Right?

[nominak]

Then this goes the other way around:

a teacher can thus criticize a-theistic beliefs during history (or other courses) as much as they want without being sued.

Right?

But that would require atheism to be brought up in the first place ;)

[blade1269]

This is excellent news.

Thats Very sad!!!

Why on Earth should religion be taught in school?

Religion is a private matter, school is a public one.

Then why should evolution (Small "e") be taught in school. It's not even proven...(Theory of evolution)

[mudslag]

Why on Earth should religion be taught in school?

Religion is a private matter, school is a public one.

The history of religion and the affects on the surrounding world is completely different then preaching religion.

Then why should evolution (Small "e") be taught in school. It's not even proven...(Theory of evolution)

Its a scientific theory taught in the science class room.

[Samurizer]

Then why should evolution (Small "e") be taught in school. It's not even proven...(Theory of evolution)

You theists keep repeating this line over and over as though it will make your delusion true.

From genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, paleontology, geographical distribution of species, phylogenetics, evolution is a completely studied and proven theory. Not a single piece of evidence we have today disproves evolution; rather, all of them prove it, and evolution has made falsifiable predictions that are found to be true. We've studied selection forces both in the lab and in the wild, and we've directly observed speciation occurring. Theistic evolution - that evolution did occur, but only because God caused it to - is accepted even among many Christians today because they don't feel like idiots adamantly denying the mountains of evidence anymore.

Seriously, go and educate yourself instead of blindly parroting the cr@p your church leaders stuff you with.

[TheElite]

From genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, paleontology, geographical distribution of species, phylogenetics, evolution is a completely studied and proven theory. Not a single piece of evidence we have today disproves evolution; rather, all of them prove it, and evolution has made falsifiable predictions that are found to be true. We've studied selection forces both in the lab and in the wild, and we've directly observed speciation occurring. Theistic evolution - that evolution did occur, but only because God caused it to - is accepted even among many Christians today because they don't feel like idiots adamantly denying the mountains of evidence anymore.

You atheists keep repeating this line over and over as though it will make your delusion true.

EDIT: Just a quick google search brought this up:

In order of strength:

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

3. Astronomical probabilities calculated as necessary for the simplest proteins to form (not enough time).

4. Fossil Record

5. Existence of information more complicated than a computer language encoded in DNA requires an author.

6. Genetics, i.e. losses always involved in mutations, fatality rate when mutations occur.

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[Samurizer]

You atheists keep repeating this line over and over as though it will make your delusion true.

Not really. Feel free to ask any credible biologist whether he or she thinks evolution is true.

But, as usual, presenting facts to theists is a lost cause.

[TheElite]

Read the edit for stuff which goes against "evolution".

[Samurizer]

Just a quick google search brought this up:

1. Irreducible complexity has proven to be a load of BS. ID proponents tried to push this as one of their arguments in court trying to get ID taught in science class, where it was soundly defeated by the testimonial of scientists.

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

3. Oddly enough, nobody has ever presented the workings for the calculations, just theists spewing an absurdly large number with no evidence to back it up in hopes of bamboozling people. I wonder why.

4. Not a single fossil disproves the modern evolutionary synthesis. Go ahead, name one.

5. "Losses always involved in mutations" is a load of crap. Find me any scientific law or theory that declares that this must happen.

6. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply in non-closed systems, or systems in which there is no prior time. Which you'd have found out if you even bothered to read through any thermodynamics textbook instead of ignorantly parroting BS claims.

[TheElite]

1. Are you saying that it's not complex?

3. Why don't you tell me the little amount of time needed then?

4. Nothing really proves it either. Why is it that not one transition has ever been observed? Even with the Mesonychids, many stages were involved, where's the evidence?

[Samurizer]

1. Are you saying that it's not complex?

No, I'm saying that the evidence against ID and irreducible complexity is so overwhelming that even a creationist Christian judge appointed by creationist Christian George W. Bush was forced to rule against it. That's how nonsensical ID and irreducible complexity is.

3. Why don't you tell me the little amount of time needed then?

To the best of my knowledge, proteins don't fossilize very well (if at all), and we currently have no record of life beyond fossilized bacteria from 3000 million years ago. The Earth is approximately 4540 million years old, so if I had to guess I'd say somewhere around a thousand million years.

4. Nothing really proves it either. Why is it that not one transition has ever been observed? Even with the Mesonychids, many stages were involved, where's the evidence?

I guess you've obviously never heard of the Tiktaalik: the classic example of a transitional fossil that was predicted to exist, and was later discovered that it indeed existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Discovery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

But let's not get sidetracked. You claimed that the fossil record disproves evolution. Where's your evidence? Same goes for your "proteins can't possibly have formed!" claim and all other ones. Or are you empty-handed as usual, just like how theists invariably are?

[TheElite]

I guess you've obviously never heard of the Tiktaalik: the classic example of a transitional fossil that was predicted to exist, and was later discovered that it indeed existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Discovery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I never stated that there weren't any supposed transitional fossils. I stated that it is convenient that we've never observed a transition.

But let's not get sidetracked. You claimed that the fossil record disproves evolution. Where's your evidence?

The fact that it was used widely in the 90's as proof when it was incomplete, and still is incomplete, isn't evidence enough?

Same goes for your "proteins can't possibly have formed!" claim and all other ones. Or are you empty-handed as usual, just like how theists invariably are?

Given your vague, and ironically unscientific, answer above regarding proteins, I don't see how you can use it as evidence FOR evolution.

[nominak]

I never stated that there weren't any supposed transitional fossils. I stated that it is convenient that we've never observed a transition.

The fact that it was used widely in the 90's as proof when it was incomplete, and still is incomplete, isn't evidence enough?

Given your vague, and ironically unscientific, answer above regarding proteins, I don't see how you can use it as evidence FOR evolution.

You've never seen what happens during a conception of a child? (yes I know you meant it to be for Fossils.)

It comes from nothing, to a fetus, to a full grown baby. Then that baby, goes from being a tiny itty bitty thing, to a child, which then turns into a teenager, which in turn develops into an adult.

Or is that too complicated for you to figure out? I mean, you're just gonna say something about the bible and jesus and god doing all that stuff right?

[Amarok]

Well this thread makes me really sad to be a human being. Here we have two schools of thought practiced by people who are basically babies. Grow up, ffs. Who cares if some person believes something different from you? Leave 'em alone. Keep your belief and lack of belief to yourself and other like minded individuals unless an outsider asks you about it and just stop bickering about it. There are actually REAL problems in the world, nobody at all should care if a teacher criticizes Creationism, nor should they care if that same teacher criticizes Evolution. It's just another person with an opinion. So many damned ad hominem attacks up in this thread it's disgusting. And I feel like I'm back in preschool. Learn to get along. >.<

You'll never change each other's minds, ever. Especially being hostile about it! All you're accomplishing is wasting your own time and annoying people who have the good sense to keep their beliefs or lack thereof to themselves.

[Samurizer]

I never stated that there weren't any supposed transitional fossils. I stated that it is convenient that we've never observed a transition.

Actually, yes, we have. Every single organism we see, every single fossil we've discovered is a transition of something else. Transitions aren't discrete, they're continuous. Just like how although people are defined as either being of legal age or not, they don't suddenly jump from being a child to an adult overnight.

The fact that it was used widely in the 90's as proof when it was incomplete, and still is incomplete, isn't evidence enough?

The fossil evidence is used as proof because, as I've said, not a single one of all the fossils we've discovered to date fall out of place from what we would expect to find if evolution was true. It's unlikely that the fossil record can ever be "complete", or that we'll know if it ever is (how do you know if or when you've found everything?), but that doesn't stop it from being proof.

Given your vague, and ironically unscientific, answer above regarding proteins, I don't see how you can use it as evidence FOR evolution.

Nobody is quoting the time of formation of proteins as proof for evolution. In fact I doubt it even falls under evolution in the first place. The evidence for evolution, as I've already said, come from genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, paleontology, geographical distribution of species, phylogenetics, the fossil record, direct observation of speciation and the action of selection forces, etc etc etc.

Now, let's go back to the original question which you - like all other theists - have been trying so hard to dodge: where is your evidence that it's impossible for proteins to form, and all the other claims you've made against evolution so far? Oh wait, that's right, you don't have any.

The obstinate ignorance and absolute determination of theists to stick with nonsense over logic can be so amazing. I can't help but wonder what kind of "intelligent" god would've designed people like you.

[TheElite]

You've never seen what happens during a conception of a child?

It comes from nothing, to a fetus, to a full grown baby. Then that baby, goes from being a tiny itty bitty thing, to a child, which then turns into a teenager, which in turn develops into an adult.

Or is that too complicated for you to figure out? I mean, you're just gonna say something about the bible and jesus and god doing all that stuff right?

Right, because this is relevant at all.

:rolleyes: Next you'll be saying that food turning into excrement is relevant as well.

Actually, yes, we have. Every single organism we see, every single fossil we've discovered is a transition of something else. Transitions aren't discrete, they're continuous. Just like how although people are defined as either being of legal age or not, they don't suddenly jump from being a child to an adult overnight.

Where can I see this live transition?

If I can't, then you failed to respond to my point.

EDIT: And people DO in fact jump from being a child to an adult overnight. It's called their 18th birthday.

[Samurizer]

Where can I see this live transition?

Did you even read my post? You're an example of a transitional organism yourself.

As for me failing to respond to your points, I'm not the one who's replying to less and less of my points and ignoring more and more of them because you have no answer.

EDIT: And people DO in fact jump from being a child to an adult overnight. It's called their 18th birthday.

Legally, yes. Practically, no. They continue to grow and mature as teenagers bit by bit, not magically transform from a kid into a grownup on the night they turn 18. Which was my whole point. Taxonomy puts organisms into either this or that class and species, but the fact is that every organism is a transitional.

[nominak]

Right, because this is relevant at all.

EDIT: And people DO in fact jump from being a child to an adult overnight. It's called their 18th birthday.

No, people dont JUMP from one stage to another. You're just grasping at straws now. How is what I said irrelevant?

A baby comes from one egg and one sperm, and grows into what you see before yourself in a mirror.

When you say people jump from being a child to an adult overnight, it shows how VERY little you know about anything.

So what you're saying is..

This

becomes one of these..

over night.

There were 0 transitions in between? Give me a break.

[CrossCheck]

There is an official religion thread where this could be posted, and some of the replies are offensive to those of us that are Christian.

well then if you don't want to be offended then don't read the replies on this thread.

[crazzy88ss]

hold a gun to my head and I'll still proclaim that Jesus is lord.

what a teacher may tell you or say, and what you know in your heart and soul are 2 different things. No point getting butt hurt over it though.

+100

People are so damn sensitive to everything.

[CrossCheck]

I'm not saying they shouldn't discuss different subjects with their students. What I said is that they should neither criticize nor condone opinions. When I was in school we had conversations about all sorts of things, but they were conversations between students, the teacher was only there to give pointers but never ever directly attacked someone's beliefs. We, as humans, develop sympathy towards some ideas even if they aren't something that can be proven, confronting them will likely create tension and destroy the relationship between a student and a teacher. When this relationship is destroyed it becomes very difficult for the teacher to convey his ideas in the future even if they are proven facts.

so what your saying that they should not teach debate either since debating subject usually involves opinions. a teacher has the right to express his opinion as much as a student does.

[danielbb]

There is an official religion thread where this could be posted, and some of the replies are offensive to those of us that are Christian.

Good!