NationStates Jolt Archive

You always hear about it. People don't like evolution in school. Now, I recognize people's rights to their faiths. But why not teach multiple theories in schools? Evolution is supposedly taught as a theory. But read the wording in the textbooks. Not much of how you'd word a "theory" if you ask me. They stae it as fact. You argue it's unconstitutional, "What about securalism?" The thing is the constitution also says the government won't favor any faith over another. "Faith" is the belief in something that can't 100% be proven. I also think, in textbooks and schools, that teachers and material should have an equal emphasis on "Creationism" (but in textbooks the same rules applies as evolution), exploring the sciences of various religions, and explaining how in this theory that a deity or several deities made the universe, etc. But I also think schools should continue to teach evolution. No holy books of religions would be discussed. Atheistic theories, and creationistic theories would recieve equal emphasis in schools. Now my question is: why can't we tune down the wording in textbooks, teach kids other theories, and let them choose for themselves what they believe? Why can't we stop these problems in a fair way, like this one? What happened to securalism? Really?

http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/sonstige/popc.gif

http://tfp.killbots.com/fanart/kevinmac/005_kevin-morbo.gif
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION

Thank you Morbo.
http://tfp.killbots.com/fanart/kevinmac/005_kevin-morbo.gif
OR CREATIONISM

Thank you for clarifying that Morbo.
Morbo would also like to add that:
RELIGION DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS

There's nothing scientific about creationism. Ergo, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

There.. That wasn't hard.

snip

Faith is a belief in something that is less that 1% proven.

Theory is a belief in something that is more than 99% proven.

Biology does not make sense except in the light of evolution.

If we teach creationism then we really need to teach intelligent falling too.

You always hear about it. People don't like evolution in school. Now, I recognize people's rights to their faiths. But why not teach multiple theories in schools? Evolution is supposedly taught as a theory. But read the wording in the textbooks. Not much of how you'd word a "theory" if you ask me. They stae it as fact. You argue it's unconstitutional, "What about securalism?" The thing is the constitution also says the government won't favor any faith over another. "Faith" is the belief in something that can't 100% be proven. I also think, in textbooks and schools, that teachers and material should have an equal emphasis on "Creationism" (but in textbooks the same rules applies as evolution), exploring the sciences of various religions, and explaining how in this theory that a deity or several deities made the universe, etc. But I also think schools should continue to teach evolution. No holy books of religions would be discussed. Atheistic theories, and creationistic theories would recieve equal emphasis in schools. Now my question is: why can't we tune down the wording in textbooks, teach kids other theories, and let them choose for themselves what they believe? Why can't we stop these problems in a fair way, like this one? What happened to securalism? Really?

I don't think there is any problem at all discussing evolutionary theory and creationism in schools. So long as they are taught in the appropriate classes. Evolutionary theory in science class and creationism in religious studies..

Jane Austin and algebra both have a place in a our schools curriculum but there is no point in teaching Jane Austin in Maths class or Algebra in Drama class.

There's nothing scientific about creationism. Ergo, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

There.. That wasn't hard.

true, but it does belong in theology. ;)

so shouldn't Theology be available to Elementary to High school as well?

Sadly though, evolution is a religion, in a sense. "Science" is soemthing that is proven. Evolution has not been proven, and therefor is not science. Unless you do not want to teach anything in science, the only constitutional way to do things is mine.

I don't think there is any problem at all discussing evolutionary theory and creationism in schools. So long as they are taught in the appropriate classes. Evolutionary theory in science class and creationism in religious studies..

Jane Austin and algebra both have a place in a our schools curriculum but there is no point in teaching Jane Austin in Maths class or Algebra in Drama class.

I dunno... I can picture a play on Proofs and such. :p

true, but it does belong in theology. ;)

so shouldn't Theology be available to Elementary to High school as well?

No, not in public schools.

Sadly though, evolution is a religion, in a sense. "Science" is soemthing that is proven. Evolution has not been proven, and therefor is not science. Unless you do not want to teach anything in science, the only constitutional way to do things is mine.

No, it is not.

Think about it this way, in my AP Psychology class, we always learn theories, such as Freud's theories. None of these theories have been verified nearly as well as evolution and yet they are not considered religions.

Sadly though, evolution is a religion, in a sense. "Science" is soemthing that is proven. Evolution has not been proven, and therefor is not science. Unless you do not want to teach anything in science, the only constitutional way to do things is mine.

Don't make me get Morbo back in here, science does not work like that, nor does your constitution.

Actually, fuck it. I like Morbo.
http://tfp.killbots.com/fanart/kevinmac/005_kevin-morbo.gif
SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT

I don't think there is any problem at all discussing evolutionary theory and creationism in schools. So long as they are taught in the appropriate classes. Evolutionary theory in science class and creationism in religious studies..

Jane Austin and algebra both have a place in a our schools curriculum but there is no point in teaching Jane Austin in Maths class or Algebra in Drama class.

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact.

Now my question is: why can't we tune down the wording in textbooks, teach kids other theories, and let them choose for themselves what they believe? Why can't we stop these problems in a fair way, like this one? What happened to securalism? Really?

no

No, not in public schools.

Actually there's nothing at all wrong with teaching religion in public schools. Just as long as they don't teach one to be the "right" religion. It's just a question as to whether students are mature enough to handle the subject matter in an impartial way.

It's hard for many adults, what hope to teenagers have?

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact.

corret. It's a theory. What about it?

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact.

It may not be a fact, but the word theory in science refers to something that is widely accpeted by almost all scientists and has evidence to support it.

****Would people this does not relate too (people outside the US) please stay out. No offense, but if we did adopt this we can't force you too too, and only citizens have a true say in (US) politics.****

Gravity is NOT a scientific fact.

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory, backed up with huge amounts of evidence(which is what is required for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory). Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Creationism basicallys says that God made everything(a very unscientific idea, btw). Evolution deals with how life has changed over millions, if not billions of years, i.e. how it has *gasp* evolved.

Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? Only 40% of Americans accept evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory, backed up with huge amounts of evidence(which is what is required for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory). Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Creationism basicallys says that God made everything(a very unscientific idea, btw). Evolution deals with how life has changed over millions, if not billions of years, i.e. how it has *gasp* evolved.

Sadly there is also an equal amount of proof on the christian side, even with the lack of christian scientists. Oh and evolution is also a very unscientific idea btw

Gravity is NOT a scientific fact.

Fairness's theorum:
Evolution can't be proved+lack of supporting tax payers who believe in it+creationism is also a branch of science= multiple theories taught in schools

"Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? Only 40% of Americans accept evolution"

no

overcoming ignorance is the point of school

Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? Only 40% of Americans accept evolution.

no, science class should contain what SCIENTISTS believe. The average citizen is not a scientist and his opinion on the subject is rather uninformed and thus irrelevant.

Fairness's theorum:
Evolution can't be proved+lack of supporting tax payers who believe in it+creationism is also a branch of science= multiple theories taught in schools

That bolded part is where you're wrong. No it isn't.

Fairness's theorum:
Evolution can't be proved+lack of supporting tax payers who believe in it+creationism is also a branch of science= multiple theories taught in schools

evolution has plenty of evidence backing it up

creationism has none

Sadly there is also an equal amount of proof on the christian side, even with the lack of christian scientists.

What proof?

Oh and evolution is also a very unscientific idea btw

O RLY?

You always hear about it. People don't like evolution in school. People don't like PE in school either.
Now, I recognize people's rights to their faiths. But why not teach multiple theories in schools? Sure, you have any other scientific theories?
Evolution is supposedly taught as a theory. But read the wording in the textbooks. Maybe you're confused about what a theory is.
Not much of how you'd word a "theory" if you ask me. Nobody did.
They stae it as fact. In addition to being a theory, it is.
You argue it's unconstitutional, "What about securalism?" I don't. What about secularism?
The thing is the constitution also says the government won't favor any faith over another.No it doesn't. It says:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
"Faith" is the belief in something that can't 100% be proven. No it isn't. Faith is "a belief not based on proof."
I also think, in textbooks and schools, that teachers and material should have an equal emphasis on "Creationism" (but in textbooks the same rules applies as evolution), exploring the sciences of various religions, and explaining how in this theory that a deity or several deities made the universe, etc.Well, no. For one, creationism isn't even a proven hypothesis, which falls short of a theory. Secondly, it isn't "science", it's mythology.
But I also think schools should continue to teach evolution. No holy books of religions would be discussed. Atheistic theories, and creationistic theories would recieve equal emphasis in schools. Evolution isn't an athiestic theory, it's science.
Now my question is: why can't we tune down the wording in textbooks, teach kids other theories, and let them choose for themselves what they believe? Why can't we stop these problems in a fair way, like this one? What happened to securalism? Really?We do teach them other theories, such as the theory of gravity, theory of relativity, and so on.

There's no fairness in allowing bullshit into schools. What's next? Giving neo-nazi reviosionists fair time in history class?

Sadly there is also an equal amount of proof on the christian side, even with the lack of christian scientists. Oh and evolution is also a very unscientific idea btw

How so? Where is your equal amount of evidence? I was taight that it was science.

Oh and evolution is also a very unscientific idea btw

You have no fucking clue what science is, do you?

No, not in public schools.why not? why shouldn't theology be taught in public schools. not just Christianity, but all Religions.

overcoming ignorance is the point of school

Exactly why evolution needs to be taught with multiple theories.

Sadly there is also an equal amount of proof on the christian side, even with the lack of christian scientists. Oh and evolution is also a very unscientific idea btw

Are you reading my posts or just spewing out rhetoric? Do I have to write this in massive letters? Evolution has nothing at all to do with how life came about, at all, not in the tiniest way. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution because the two are not related at all.

And what is this proof? Can you link to any peer reviewed studies which concluded that "God" created the universe?

"Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? Only 40% of Americans accept evolution"

no

overcoming ignorance is the point of schoolI also thought it was to also delvelope and broaden minds.

Ach, do we really haff to discuss zis again?

Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? No. They should reflect reality.

why not? why shouldn't theology be taught in public schools. not just Christianity, but all Religions.

That's what I've been proposing. Why on earth do people oppose this? It's not like we're banning evolution.

Exactly why evolution needs to be taught with multiple theories.

There aren't any other competing theories.

Exactly why evolution needs to be taught with multiple theories.

I agree 100%. Please find me another scientific theory on the subject, and I will fully support it being taught in science class.

Ach, do we really haff to discuss zis again?Verräter! Wie kannst du es wagen, das V als W hinzuschreiben?! :mad:

No. They should reflect reality.

Exactly. Exactly why students should have the right to choose that monkeys do not become people, ooo-ooo-ah-ah.

Sadly there is also an equal amount of proof on the christian side, even with the lack of christian scientists.

There's possibly an equal amount. Noone's saying their tame scientists aren't persistant buggers. But it's all completely guff, fundamentally flawed, not peer reviewed and by and large just made up.

That's what I've been proposing. Why on earth do people oppose this? It's not like we're banning evolution.

sure, teach religion, that's fine.

In a theology class.

Keep it the fuck out of science's time, however.

I agree 100%. Please find me another scientific theory on the subject, and I will fully support it being taught in science class.There's the Lamarckian hypothesis, but I think it got debunked...

There aren't any other competing theories.

Do dum, what's that thing called creationism :confused:

sure, teach religion, that's fine.

In a theology class.

Keep it the fuck out of science's time, however.

Too damn bad evolution is no more science than evolution.

Fairness's theorum:
Evolution can't be proved
Nor can the laws of thermodynamics. You just try and stop people from learning them.
+lack of supporting tax payers who believe in it
The beliefs of tax payers have no weight on what is a scientific theory and what is not.
+creationism is also a branch of science
No, it's not.
= multiple theories taught in schools

Fine, but if they're not science then they can find another more suitable subject.

Exactly. Exactly why students should have the right to choose that monkeys do not become people, ooo-ooo-ah-ah.

since when do children have the right to decide their own education? Why should children get to chose to learn something other than science in science class?

And by the way...maybe you should actually go and study evolution, before trying to talk about how wrong it is, nobody's ever said monkey's become people

Exactly. Exactly why students should have the right to choose that monkeys do not become people, ooo-ooo-ah-ah.Who ever said that monkeys become people?

Too damn bad evolution is no more science than evolution.

What........................:confused:

Too damn bad evolution is no more science than evolution.

....hrm, so many, many ways I could go with this.

I'm just gonna settle on calling you a moron who is ignorant as to what "science" means, and move on.

Are you reading my posts or just spewing out rhetoric? Do I have to write this in massive letters? Evolution has nothing at all to do with how life came about, at all, not in the tiniest way. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution because the two are not related at all.

And what is this proof? Can you link to any peer reviewed studies which concluded that "God" created the universe?

Do you know what "the process of elimination" is? Prove evolution wrong=creationism is only alternative.

Exactly. Exactly why students should have the right to choose that monkeys do not become people, ooo-ooo-ah-ah.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4026/strawmanqk8.gif

Do dum, what's that thing called creationism :confused:

It has nothing at all to do with evolution. As I have said numerous times.


I've never gotten this frustrated in a thread before. Awesome.

Too damn bad evolution is no more science than evolution.
What........................:confused:Maybe he wanted to say that Bad Religion is better than religion and got it all confused...:D

Do you know what "the process of elimination" is? Prove evolution wrong=creationism is only alternative.

Actually you assume those are the only two options, which is silly...and where, exactly, is this proof that evolution is wrong?

Do dum, what's that thing called creationism :confused:

Not a fucking theory, since it isn't falsifiable, nor has it been tested, nor does it make predictions.

The beliefs of tax payers have no weight on what is a scientific theory and what is not.


Right, but they do have an effect on what's taught in schools :P

Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? Only 40% of Americans accept evolution.

Yes, let's just teach what people believe! After all, that's how progress is made. That's how new technology is invented. That's how things like the internet, modern agricultural yields, global communication and the like are possible. Because we only teach what people believe, rather than what has been proven. :rolleyes:

You know, back on another forum I used to hang around, we had a super rolleyes. Was absolutely huge. Really wish I had it now.

Exactly why evolution needs to be taught with multiple theories.

a good evolution class does have multiple theories.

i dont know the names but ones like that evolution happens at a steady rate over the eons and the one where evolution is faster at some times than others followed by a period of species stability.

Do you know what "the process of elimination" is? Prove evolution wrong=creationism is only alternative.Er, in the process of elimination, stuff that got eliminated earlier on usually doesn't stay on the list.

Right, but they do have an effect on what's taught in schools :P

no they don't, legislators do. Legislators are those people who make law. Law makers are bound by the constitution.

Do dum, what's that thing called creationism :confused:A disproven hypothesis.

Do you know what "the process of elimination" is? Prove evolution wrong=creationism is only alternative.

Uhhh, NO.
Lastthursdayism

Do you know what "the process of elimination" is? Prove evolution wrong=creationism is only alternative.

This is incomprehensibly unscientific.
Creationism is not an alternative to evolution
Process of elimination only works when the correct answer is either A or B(for example). If it cannot be A then, yes, it must be B. This is not the case with Evolution and creationism because *see above*

Newtons Laws of Physics are in fact theory.... they are not totally correct. They are a pretty damn good approximation though. Do they need refining.. Yes.. and they have been refined.. several times. But its still taught at school in science class because it is a good first step to understanding how the world works.

Evolutionary theory is just that a theory... its not totally correct. They are a pretty damn good approximation though. Do they need refining.. Yes.. and they have been refined.. several times. But its still taught at school in science class because it is a good first step to understanding how the world works.

Most of what you are taught at school is simply an approximation of how things really work... from Science class.. to French Class (Bon Jour isn't the only thing French people say when they first greet each other :eek: )

Science will never have perfect theories... it doesn't work to PROVE things.. only to disprove theories... as you find contradictory evidence theories have to get refined.

Christian Creationism is no better a theory than that esposed by Pastafarianism (http://www.venganza.org/).. they are identically untestable therefore they can't be part of scientific pursuit. They may be right or they may be wrong but they are irrelevant to science... but very relevant to Philosophy and Theology...

That's what I've been proposing. Why on earth do people oppose this? It's not like we're banning evolution.

because theology belongs in theology class.

some highschools offer a comparative religion class, perhaps that covers different creation stories.

Right, but they do have an effect on what's taught in schools :P

How unfortunate for your country.

Do you know what "the process of elimination" is? Prove evolution wrong=creationism is only alternative.

That's a little bit of circular logic there. If Creationism is the correct cause then we're assuming life is the result of a force beyond our understanding, then by definition it's beyond our understanding so you can't prove or disprove anything to do with it. Ergo Evolution stands.

I don't see how hard this is. Evolution is scientific, therefore belongs in a science class. It's highly accepted by the scientific community and has a lot of support. Creationism is a belief and isn't something that belongs in a science class.

That's what I've been proposing. Why on earth do people oppose this? It's not like we're banning evolution.

because your mistake is mixing Evolution with Religion. thus it looks like you are saying to teach Creationism in Science class.

Ugh, it's 2:15 in the morning. I'm going to bed before this thread frustrates me into a forumban. I'll give an infinite number of cookies to the person that can make Nova Aquaria see the light and admit defeat.

That's a little bit of circular logic there. If Creationism is the correct cause then we're assuming life is the result of a force beyond our understanding, then by definition it's beyond our understanding so you can't prove or disprove anything to do with it. Ergo Evolution stands.
not to mention that some religions fully accept the process of evolution, some believe in a middle ground called "intelligent design" and some insist on a literal interpretation of the book of genesis.

then we have to consider the "creationism" of non-biblical religions

Do you know what "the process of elimination" is? Prove evolution wrong=creationism is only alternative.

2+2 = doesn't equal 5 therfore it must equal 14754731

thats the kind of process of elimination you are doing here...

So evolution is a little out... doesn't mean it isn't close.

It also doesn't mean that some other random fact is true.

Is the Flying spaghetti monster real just because evolutionary theory still needs some refining (only really a very small amount of tweaking at that)

Ugh, it's 2:15 in the morning. I'm going to bed before this thread frustrates me into a forumban. I'll give an infinite number of cookies to the person that can make Nova Aquaria see the light and admit defeat.

What, you think this is serious?

2+2 = doesn't equal 5 therfore it must equal 14754731

thats the kind of process of elimination you are doing here...

So evolution is a little out... doesn't mean it isn't close.

It also doesn't mean that some other random fact is true.

Is the Flying spaghetti monster real just because evolutionary theory still needs some refining (only really a very small amount of tweaking at that)
actually, 2+2= 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+E :D

If the world is created, by what exactly is it created? Define the creating agency.

What, you think this is serious?Are you kidding me? NA will never admit that he's not for real and that he's been pulling our leg all along.

Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? Only 40% of Americans accept evolution.

So we should teach that Australia is part of Europe??

Just because the education system is having trouble conveying information doesn't mean you should change what is being taught.... maybe how you teach it.. but not what you teach.

Maybe that number is a reflection of the quality of science education in America... if its anything like here in Australia (in the middle of the pacific I might point out) then it is probably woefully inadequate

actually, 2+2= 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+E :D

Well 3.999... :)

that was a great debate. I kept wanting to post but I knew I would just make myself look stupid....

So I guess to be fair Evolutionary theory is like 2+2 = 3.9

it may one day get to 3.999999999 but it aint never gonna get to 3.999...

Verräter! Wie kannst du es wagen, das V als W hinzuschreiben?! :mad:
Oh vei! I only vanted to inclute everyvone! :D

Besides, I haff a monkey to show you:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/3headedmonkey.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/uebermann.gif

I strongly agree that we should offer various theories of life and creation in school. Our children deserve to be given varying perspectives - not to be propagandized to and socially engineered by liberal secularists trying to de-Christianize the country.

However, I am troubled by the fact that most proposals for such teaching ignore my own view, one that is backed up by just as much evidence as any of the others that have been proposed to be taught. I subscribe by the notion of Drunken Design - namely, that instead of an intelligent and methodical deity or alien species designing life on earth, this task was completed by the true ruler of the universe, a being of immense power and wisdom known to us mere mortals as Fred. Unfortunately, Fred, despite possessing perfection in all other respects, has a certain fondness for alcohol, and when He performed the task, He was highly intoxicated, thus explaining away some of the problems plaguing the otherwise brilliant theory of Intelligent Design - vestigial organs, for instance.

I am tired of my views being marginalized, especially seeing as how they are noticeably superior to the alternatives. I insist that, in the true spirit of tolerance and intellectual inquiry, you permit the theory of Drunken Design to be taught beside Evolution and Intelligent Design, and, because I am an ardent advocate of pluralism, I also insist that you pay attention to all other proposals to expand our science curriculum. Not everyone is Jewish or Christian, after all, and not everyone believes Genesis.

In the hope of achieving true harmony and diversity, let us push for full inclusion of everyone's theories of the origin of life, so that at last we shall achieve genuine fair representation of everyone's point of view.

If the world is created, by what exactly is it created? Define the creating agency.

Well the world they have a pretty good handle on... well at least the basics... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_nebula)

Universe .. another story.

But just because we don't know the exact answer doesn't mean the answer is God... or FSM or any of those things... it just means that we don't know.

If your kid asks you why the Chinese built the Great wall of china and I say I don't know and you say to keep the rabbits out... it doesn't mean you are right, just because you have an answer....

In the hope of achieving true harmony and diversity, let us push for full inclusion of everyone's theories of the origin of life, so that at last we shall achieve genuine fair representation of everyone's point of view.

YEAH

like my theory called "the theory of incompetent design" where the creation of life on earth earned "god" a 3rd place ribbon in his jr high science fair.

like my theory called "the theory of incompetent design" where the creation of life on earth earned "god" a 3rd place ribbon in his jr high science fair.He only lost because Prometheus cheated! :mad:

Nova, ohhhh Nova, are you there?

Lets say we do what you want. Ok? We teach creationism in science class because the majority of Americans believe it, ignoring the fact that we don't know which brand of creationism to teach. We also, of course, teach evolution because the majority of scientists believe.
Do you believe we should also have a theology class? I'm going to assume yes (remember its only an assumption). Should we also teach atheism or deism in your theology class? The majority of scientists are atheists or deists (or at least don't believe in a personal god). The majority of scientists don't believe in revealed religions.

If you say yes, then well, thats that. But if you say no then why should the majority of people, who don't understand science, dictate what is taught in a science class?

If the world is created, by what exactly is it created? Define the creating agency.

Must have been Microsoft, cause that would explain why the world is so buggy and seems to crash alot.

Must have been Microsoft, cause that would explain why the world is so buggy and seems to crash alot.Don't be stupid. Even Microsoft programs have a save function, which Earth clearly does not.

Don't be stupid. Even Microsoft programs have a save function, which Earth clearly does not.

But obviously the save function is corrupting the files.

I may say silly things, but that doesn't make them stupid.

But obviously the save function is corrupting the files.

I may say silly things, but that doesn't make them stupid.I'm just saying that whoever designed Earth is even worse at getting things to work right than Gates and his crew.

Sadly there is also an equal amount of proof on the christian side, even with the lack of christian scientists. Oh and evolution is also a very unscientific idea btw

Actually no there really hasn't.

Much of it was debunked.

DR Dino. Fraud
Behe went down in flames in the last lawsuit

I'm just saying that whoever designed Earth is even worse at getting things to work right than Gates and his crew.

Maybe the world is still in beta?

Hell that excuse has worked for MS for YEARS!

Behe went down in flames in the last lawsuit

what, you don't find astrology to be something reasonable to include in science classes?

Sadly though, evolution is a religion, in a sense. "Science" is soemthing that is proven. Evolution has not been proven, and therefor is not science. Unless you do not want to teach anything in science, the only constitutional way to do things is mine.

Science is manifestly not "something that is proven." According to the scientific method, it is impossible to "prove" anything true. You can prove things to be false, or you can not prove things to be false. Those are your only options. Evolution has been shown to be not-false over and over and over again, which is why it is a "theory" and not a "hypothesis." It should be noted that there is no status in science above "theory"; there is no point at which a theory graduates to something better. "Theory" is as close to "fact" as science ever gets. I highly suggest you learn the rudiments of science before lecturing others on what it is and isn't.

Also, shouldn't things taught in schools reflect what citizens believe? Only 40% of Americans accept evolution.

Haha! Yeah, let's structure our classes around what most Americans believe. That'll be great. Gravity will now be defined as "that thing that makes stuff fall down or something." History classes will explain that past presidents include Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and "a bunch of other people who didn't do anything important." English classes will teach that "alot" is a word. And, of course, the scientific method will suddenly involve proving things true. Who needs facts when we can teach our kids how to be ignorant?

Exactly. Exactly why students should have the right to choose that monkeys do not become people, ooo-ooo-ah-ah.

You are doing a very impressive job of demonstrating why teaching people "what most Americans believe" is a bad idea. Again, it might be wise to do even thirty seconds' worth of research before posting, because when you claim that evolution involves "monkeys becoming people," well, you don't get taken very seriously.

How about we do away with 'orgins of life' topics in public schools and do a Monty-Python-esque 'shushing' if anyone says either of the words?