Educational laws (relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools)

[jezcoe]

Section 1(3)f of the law clearly states that religious beliefs may not be taught.

The teaching of intelligent design has been shown to be religious teaching, so what is this bill trying to accomplish?

[tzor]

So the first meteorite brings life to Earth, that life is unchanging.

A second meteorite strikes the earth thousands, millions of years later and brings new life and this new life's DNA causes all life on Earth that is unchanging to now start changing?

During the time from 1st Meteor to 2nd Meteor what was the life status on Earth all one type of Virus or Bacteria?



>>>>

I'm only vaguely aware of theories of life from outside the planet, but I believe that the second meteor theory didn't directly change the DNA in the existing life forms of the planet. Instead it brought in a new organelle complete with its own internal DNA sequence. That organelle started poluting the planet with a very dangerous poison gas. All life forms that could not assimiliate the new organelle and adopt to the new poison were driven to the deepest parts of the planet. The organelle, known as a chloroplast is believed by some to be from outside the earth because it's chemical composition is optmized for a spectrum found more at the orbit of Jupiter than that of Earth. (For the non technical, this is the stuff that makes plants green and that causes oxygen to flood the earth; a highly poisonous gas for anaerobic life forms.)

[chthonian]

I'm only vaguely aware of theories of life from outside the planet, but I believe that the second meteor theory didn't directly change the DNA in the existing life forms of the planet. Instead it brought in a new organelle complete with its own internal DNA sequence. That organelle started poluting the planet with a very dangerous poison gas. All life forms that could not assimiliate the new organelle and adopt to the new poison were driven to the deepest parts of the planet. The organelle, known as a chloroplast is believed by some to be from outside the earth because it's chemical composition is optmized for a spectrum found more at the orbit of Jupiter than that of Earth. (For the non technical, this is the stuff that makes plants green and that causes oxygen to flood the earth; a highly poisonous gas for anaerobic life forms.)

Somewhere someone has conflated the hypothesis of panspermia with the Endosymbiotic theory. Panspermia hypothesis suggests that at the very least the initial organic material needed to derive a cell (nucleic acids, amino acids, some lipids etc) came from extraterrestrial sources (asteroids, comets, etc). Recent research has shown that a number of organic chemicals have been found on comets. Endosymbiotic theory is the theory that mitrochondria, chloroplasts, and maybe even the nucleus of eukaryotic cells (cells like animals, plants, fungi, protists) are derived from wholesale ingestion of a number of different bacteria (specifically for the chloroplasts and mitrochondria a cyanobacteria and purple sulphur bacteria respectively). This theory is heavily evidenced by the genetic data obtained and compared between the mitrochondria and chloroplasts and their theorized extant relatives. This has been suggested for other structures that have little bits of non-nucleic DNA such as centrioles and even some flagella/cilia (though this evidence is much weaker).

[Sanddancer]

In science class, it would be ok to say that many people accept a THEORY of evolution as how man came about. However, this in no way means that the scientists are correst in that scientific ASSUMPTION. Many also understand that there appears to be Intelligence in our design and not just haphazard chance involved. Your job is to consider both and do your homework ---- not everyone buys into atheism.

If you are claiming thats many (large minority? majority?) scientists see some sort of intelligence in the "design" of the natural world then you are wrong. I cannot help but see those who embrace ID as being intellectually lazy.

[failte]

The idea that there is evidence of "design" in nature is not accepted by the scientific community any more than the WBC's protests are accepted by the Christian community. The problem with this bill, aside from the fact that it was waste of time and taxpayer money to enact (and to be subsequently challenged and thrown out), is that it expressly encourages the teaching of controversial "opinions" in science classrooms.

Scientific theories are not "opinions." Scientific theories produced the computer screen that you are staring at, the lights over your head, and the medical cures that defeated the various ailments that would have killed you throughout your life.

When an actual, scientific reason is revealed that calls the theory of evolution into doubt, believe me, the scientific community will be all over it. THEN there will be a controversy to teach to our children.

Also, what does evolution have to do with Atheism?

[lkz]

About 10 years ago, when I was living up in the North Dallas area, a friend of one of my kids came over and asked me if I had any books regarding the scientific evidence supporting the idea that the world was created rather than evolving. I didn't. I hadn't really thought about it much.

It seems his teacher had given the kids the assignment of taking their personal stance on the origin of life and writing a research paper laying out their beliefs in regard to the beginning of life and the development of diversity of life over time. They had to identify the strengths and weaknesses for this position. It had to be based on science.

I thought this was a great way to handle this issue. It spurred me to go out and start researching the issues. I read everything I could find for a few years.

What I remember from college on the topic was one comparative vertebrae class and a general over view of the evidence for evolution. At least one of those pieces of evidence had been revealed to be fraud by the time I was in college but I was still taught it as fact (I discovered this during my research). It had been a piece of evidence that had convinced me that God had used evolution as the means of creating the world. I never had a problem with the idea God could create the world however He choose.

Look if you go out and honestly look at the strengths and weaknesses of current knowledge in the area of origin of life and macro evolution (going from one species to another) you find strengths and weaknesses in current theories.

It makes sense to teach kids to question and to know that in science what seems obvious today maybe silly thinking tomorrow.

Science gets in trouble when people believe you have to just accept something as true even if it doesn't quite work. You see a lot of sloppy science these days because either there is an emotional reason to not question something or more often money is directed toward specific answers because people are willing to fund results if they fit the payers needs. Teach our kids to look at issues by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of a possible solution. Have them hear what are sometimes very convoluted solutions developed when problems are raised in a portion of theory. It might spur them to think about other answers.

Teaching our kids that things are not black and white is a good thing for science. It is bad to teach our kids they must ignore things that don't make sense just because it might cause a house of cards to fall. Or because it was written in some textbook.

Sometimes questioning and studying will bring the person back to accept what is being taught, but sometimes their thoughts on the weakness regarding an aspect of a theory will help them develop a new approach for explaining the phenomena.

[Bonnie Lou]

About 10 years ago, when I was living up in the North Dallas area, a friend of one of my kids came over and asked me if I had any books regarding the scientific evidence supporting the idea that the world was created rather than evolving. I didn't. I hadn't really thought about it much.

It seems his teacher had given the kids the assignment of taking their personal stance on the origin of life and writing a research paper laying out their beliefs in regard to the beginning of life and the development of diversity of life over time. They had to identify the strengths and weaknesses for this position. It had to be based on science.

I thought this was a great way to handle this issue. It spurred me to go out and start researching the issues. I read everything I could find for a few years.

What I remember from college on the topic was one comparative vertebrae class and a general over view of the evidence for evolution. At least one of those pieces of evidence had been revealed to be fraud by the time I was in college but I was still taught it as fact (I discovered this during my research). It had been a piece of evidence that had convinced me that God had used evolution as the means of creating the world. I never had a problem with the idea God could create the world however He choose.

Look if you go out and honestly look at the strengths and weaknesses of current knowledge in the area of origin of life and macro evolution (going from one species to another) you find strengths and weaknesses in current theories.

It makes sense to teach kids to question and to know that in science what seems obvious today maybe silly thinking tomorrow.

Science gets in trouble when people believe you have to just accept something as true even if it doesn't quite work. You see a lot of sloppy science these days because either there is an emotional reason to not question something or more often money is directed toward specific answers because people are willing to fund results if they fit the payers needs. Teach our kids to look at issues by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of a possible solution. Have them hear what are sometimes very convoluted solutions developed when problems are raised in a portion of theory. It might spur them to think about other answers.

Teaching our kids that things are not black and white is a good thing for science. It is bad to teach our kids they must ignore things that don't make sense just because it might cause a house of cards to fall. Or because it was written in some textbook.

Sometimes questioning and studying will bring the person back to accept what is being taught, but sometimes their thoughts on the weakness regarding an aspect of a theory will help them develop a new approach for explaining the phenomena.

Well said lkz I remember when I began really questioning what was being taught in school. It was in History class, the books all referred to a victory for the Calvary and then a massacre if the Indians won. I think it was third grade and I ended up in the principles office for questioning the teacher about that. Luckily my parents backed my intuitiveness and told me I was right to question the reality of issues. It is so sad how the schools have been manipulated ..and disgraceful.