Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I believe all forms of Creation Sience(Evolution, ID, ect) need to be taught. That way people can chose which to believe.

I'm sorry, did you say that ID was a science? Perhaps astrology is, too? And let's not forget fortune-telling. We have to teach them fortune-telling and astrology so that they can choose which to believe.

Well to be fair, our governor is NOT behind this (at least not yet), and he's a Republican. And not everything scientific is "just theory".

Beeing a scientist myself I have to correct that! Science is always just a theory! A model trying to explain as much as possible, every theory will be replaced by a better one, somewhen in the future. That's called 'scientific process'. The evolution theory of today is not the one Charles Darwin created, and many other sciences use completly different theories today, for example, today's physic has little to do with the physics of the 19th century and proven all theories of that time to be completely wrong! And mean completly here! Even though Newton's laws are still taught, we know their basics are wrong, it just doesn't matter in many cases as the difference in results does not justify the much harder way to the correct results.

At 3/21/06 04:24 PM, theblinddragon wrote: I believe all forms of Creation Sience(Evolution, ID, ect) need to be taught. That way people can chose which to believe.

We should teach all the alternative theories. We can teach Astronomy alongside Astrology, Chemistry with Alchemy and Phlogiston Theory, Neurology along with Phrenology and so on. We spend half of the classtime teaching obsolete science and then label it, "teaching the controversy." It's a brilliant plan, especially when our education system in the US is allready going down the tubes.

Anybody who thinks that only proven facts should be taught in a science class has probably never taken a chemistry course or say, done anything related to particle physics.

I mean, would you accept it as "fact" that an atom has a nucleus which houses the positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons? Because if you do, you're pretty much accepting wild speculation as fact.

I highly doubt Evolutionism will be banned in any state. There have been measures against involving religion with schools. The Warren Court made several decisions involving the separation of the Church and state in the 1960's, and these decisions mainly targeted schools.

At 3/21/06 06:45 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

At 3/21/06 04:24 PM, theblinddragon wrote: I believe all forms of Creation Sience(Evolution, ID, ect) need to be taught. That way people can chose which to believe.

We should teach all the alternative theories. We can teach Astronomy alongside Astrology, Chemistry with Alchemy and Phlogiston Theory, Neurology along with Phrenology and so on. We spend half of the classtime teaching obsolete science and then label it, "teaching the controversy." It's a brilliant plan, especially when our education system in the US is allready going down the tubes.

Don't forget about the Hindu creation myths. Evolution, ID, and the genisis is wrong the world was created by the Bhraman and that we all must jion him.

At 3/21/06 09:58 PM, mjairlax wrote: Don't forget about the Hindu creation myths. Evolution, ID, and the genisis is wrong the world was created by the Bhraman and that we all must jion him.

Those explanations aren't SCIENCE!!!! Only Christian creation myths qualify to be taught in science classrooms.

Let's start up the witch trials while we're at it!

Fuckin Missouri....

Even though I'm at extreme odds with the theory of evolution, people need to know who Darwin was and his significance to the scientific community.

At the same time, does anyone really give a rats ass what Missouri does with it's own business? I think about it the same way I would if they wanted to endorse a class on creationism: let them spend their state money the way they want to and thank God I don't live there.

But it IS fact, it's utter complete fact

At 3/21/06 07:23 PM, Elfer wrote: I mean, would you accept it as "fact" that an atom has a nucleus which houses the positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons? Because if you do, you're pretty much accepting wild speculation as fact.

Well, there is evidence to support this, such as Rutherford's gold foil experiment.

At 3/21/06 07:52 PM, Birdze wrote: I highly doubt Evolutionism will be banned in any state. There have been measures against involving religion with schools. The Warren Court made several decisions involving the separation of the Church and state in the 1960's, and these decisions mainly targeted schools.

Banning evolution wouldn't be a violation of church and state. Nor would banning evolution suddenly mean it was OK to teach creationism. You have no clue what you're talking about.

At 3/22/06 01:26 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Those explanations aren't SCIENCE!!!! Only Christian creation myths qualify to be taught in science classrooms.

Hmmm, fascinating. Considering no one is proposing we teach creationism....
But hey, way to show YOUR bias.

At 3/22/06 01:44 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Let's start up the witch trials while we're at it!

Fuckin Missouri....

You're a moron.

I have an idea that is simply astounding!

Why dont we just ban the bunch? Then no one can call it a violation to "seperation of church and state" (as if there is any).

I'll sum up biology for me: Absolutely nothing. Zip. Not going to help in any time of my life.

At 3/25/06 03:39 PM, AccessCode wrote: I'll sum up biology for me: Absolutely nothing. Zip. Not going to help in any time of my life.

How many times did I walk in, and just sit?
And have to listen, and learn all this bullshit
Learnin' history and science, fuckin' wait
Knowin' that, will that put food on my plate?
Yeah, can I walk into McDonald's, up to the counter
And tell 'em you can make limestone from gunpowder
Will they give me a cheeseburger if I know that shit?
Fuck no...

Insane Clown Posse, "How Many Times

What's bullshit is that it's mandatory.

Now history, that's cool, you at least learn a bunch of facts and not assumptions based on facts.

I dont mind biology, i think it's a cool class. It's just wasteful and meaningless because 1 year from now they'll change more of it and more in years to come.

At 3/25/06 03:14 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Hmmm, fascinating. Considering no one is proposing we teach creationism....
But hey, way to show YOUR bias.

Creationism doesn't have much support anymore, but it was primarily supported by Christians obviously. The same Christians are now supporting ID coincidentally.

The answer to the big question in ID, "who is the Intelligent Designer" is obviously "the Christian God" although some ID proponents will suggest, "maybe aliens?"

At 3/25/06 05:38 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

The answer to the big question in ID, "who is the Intelligent Designer" is obviously "the Christian God" although some ID proponents will suggest, "maybe aliens?"

Isnt that kind of just The question?

you're right, theres no real proof that evolution DIDNT happen. you cant very well teach what MIGHT have happened as fact though. as long as teachers made it clear that evolution is not necesairily fact, then it should be okay.... also darwin kiked ass.

Someone find out the guy's e-mail address and send this comment to him.

Science Term definitions.

Law of Science- A FACT, it mentions that something will always happen the same way given the same circumstance (ex. an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an outside force). It explains how happens but doesn't explain why it happen

Theory- Bluntly, an idea that explains why a Law of science exists, however in order to be considered a theory it must have a significant amount of research to back it up. A theory explains why a law happens. However no matter how much evidence a theory gets it will usually remain a theory because something could be discovered to debunk the theory.

Hypothesis- basically a theory with no evidence to back it up, usually used to predict the outcome an experiment. In order for an idea to become a hypothesis it must be testable, however if the equipment needed to test the hypothesis is too expensive or is too advanced for this time (example: a rocket that goes to each and every planet to check for aliens or a device that can travel faster than light) it is still considered a hypothesis.

Useful information
Gravity is a theory so is Einstein’s theory of relativity, and global warming.
The idea of God has so few evidence supporting it, that it can not even be considered a theory. In fact since you cannot perform a test proving/debunking god's existence God can not even be considered a hypothesis and thus has no place in Science.

John Stewart and Stephen Colberet (however you spell his last name) are going to have a field day over this.