Reply With Quote
why would evolution need to be taken out of science?
Right. But even then, the question works just as well without the funding.
why would evolution need to be taken out of science?
Oh look. An argument from a 2005 message board.
I think it's pretty obvious that they do and there is nothing that say they cannot teach what they want on their own dime. No matter how you want to spin it, the voucher is the state's dime.
I think you understand the first amendment poorly. While legal en ies are given first amendment rights, they do not get the same rights as people nor do they all get equal protection. Before you invoke Citizen United you need to read the ruling. The majority opinion held that they could not distinguish between private firms and the press. Because of that equal protection applied. Schools do not meet that standard.
This may very well be litigated but as has been pointed out to you, schools are already given requirements that they must adhere to and the state is not required to give any school voucher money if they do not meet those standards.
People do not like it because the state paying for proselytization is what theocracies do. We are a secular state and are better for it.
Because it's a theory which is not based on factual data. It was an explanation which then seems more like a religion where people are more focused on starting from the point that evolution is true and therefore... Or starting with evolution and then trying to prove it right.
remember when blake made a comment that was a contribution to a discussion? Me either
Should it not be judged like for profit colleges are- by people's check books?
You know jack about evolution. You are just blatantly showing your ignorance when you use the "it's just a theory" cliche that creation s have been spouting for years.
Evolution is real. It occurs. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. There isn't a single shred of evidence for creation.
Oh, kinda like how you did nothing but dodge my points regarding the Bible, like the chicken you are?
Re ed Christian who doesn't know about the Trinity.
Well, no. You need to read up on the scientific process first. The difference between scientific theory and law. There's no 'faith' involved in either. Theories are, by definition, not entirely factual, but they all offer testable claims (even if tests cannot be conducted at this time). That automatically means none of them rely on mystical bull in the sky. Some theories also garner more merit than others as they withstand the tests on their claims. For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity makes claims and backs them up with actual hard math. A lot of it was not testable back then, some of it has become testable now, and some of it will not become testable for a while. However, it's being constantly tested and the more tests it passes, the more robust it becomes. Ultimately, if we're able to verify all the claims, it'll become a scientific law.
Being a theory also implies that if some tests don't pass, the theory or part of it will become invalidated, and a new *testable* theory will have to be formulated.
Coming right off the bat with a non-testable, non-verifiable theory is simply flat out not scientific.
Education is education. You'll learn the exact same Newton's law of motion in Harvard and in UTSA. What people's checkbooks on for profit colleges select is *quality* of education, not *content*.
I'm not a creationists
Evolution is real. It occurs. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. There isn't a single shred of evidence for creation.
“ The important thing is to not stop questioning.”
Not sure what's so funny. Parts of the theory of evolution have been tested, verified and are actual fact. The portion that normally gets the bulk of criticism is the macroevolution portion, which AFAIK, it's currently not testable.
Someone on this forum was looking at private schools. Him and his wife went to the science book his kid would be learning out of. They pushed a creationist view while completely leaving out evolution and adaptation. He then decided against that school. I'm for vouchers as well as parent choice (which they do here in Colorado Springs). It isn't the best answer, but the seems to be better than the other options.
What's funny is how unscientific his comment is. Especially in the context of evolution being scientific.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
I have no problems with vouchers. The system itself, per se, I don't think has anything to do with religion. It has apparently largely been co-opted by religious schools, and I think that's where the picture gets muddier.
As FWD said, home is always a place where you can learn about religion if you want your kids to have that education.
What's not scientific about evolution? Second time I ask.
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
No doubt. However, even Einstein had to settle for what he thought it should be. Thankfully he did, since a lot of what he thought it should be ended up being pretty spot on.
A poster stated that science class was for only factual ideas. I thought that was obvious.
I personally believe the study of the theory of evolution is a scientific study.
A theory is actually proven. Dip .
But people stating it as proven fact should do it at their evolution religious meetings and not in science class.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions