Quote:
Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
If you did in fact read the science standards, you would know that the change is merely the fact that evolution is a theory. And that's it. The purpose IS to present other theories, explore them - after all it is called science.
|
You are correct -
after all, it is called science.
The reason why it is called 'science' is because it follows methodology. Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc - none of these are actually scientific theories. These are conceptualizations of 'how things came to be' - but they are NOT theories. They do not follow the dialectic methodology required to 'prove' and refine a theory.
Only Evolutionary Theory has performed these methods, and only Evolution passes them - thus, in
science, evolution is without peer. It is at best disingenuous, and at worst dishonest, to claim that other conceptualizations are on par with evolution in a science class. Other theories do not have the scientific basis, support, and testing that evolution does. It is truly without peer, and to teach any competing ideology or concept as its peer is simply poor science and poor teaching.
I openly support introduction of a wide variety of creation mythology and other such beliefs as part of
humanities classes, for reasons similar to those honeychile has stated.
Quote:
Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
IBut please continue to point out the Christian conspiracy that secretly exist to convert everyone. LOL
|
Come now, this is non sequitur and unfair.
At no point did I make this a 'conversion' issue - this is a science issue, pure and simple.
However, that said - you've seen the Kansas Dept Of Eductation website, slogged through to the BOE section, you've read the proceedings, you've done your homework . . . what group instigated the proceedings? What confluence of events got them the hearing? What religious groups are these folks affiliated with?
It's not evidence of anything larger, and I've never claimed that. It's evidence of this exact situation - but is that better for your point, or worse?
It's also obviously not part of some 'larger goal', as almost every major Christian church supports the concept of evolution and isn't looking to do any sort of tempering of the accepted theory with convoluted crap.
Quote:
Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
IETA: If you have questions as to what is to be considered "viable", on KS BOE Science Standard Introduction document, it addresses that.
|
No - I'm asking you specifically.
None of these alternatives are scientifically viable on the level of evolutionary theory - this is my hypothesis. I invite you to disprove it. Go forth.