We've had a dearth of religious discussion on here lately. I actually found out today that it is unconstitutional to restrict the teaching of evolution. Similarly, it is also unconstitutional to require teachers who teach evolution to also teach creationism. Furthermore, creationism is not allowed to be presented as an 'alternative' to evolution in a science class. Creationism can never be taught as a scientific fact and should only be discussed in a comparative religion class.

Additionally, it is unconstitutional to require teachers to read any sort of 'disclaimer' regarding evolution.

I've always been aware of the teaching of evolution in high schools and the controversy, but surprisingly I have no memory at all of my high school biology class. Perhaps it was because my teacher was an absolute cunt. In any event, I know that a lot of webdip users are current or recent high school students, so how was this subject treated in your schools?

abgemact you meanie

Gets em' every time.

"I actually found out today that it is unconstitutional to restrict the teaching of evolution. "

Link?

Well, in Alabama, unsurprisingly we had a fat disclaimer at the beginning of our Biology textbook. Our teacher was also a youth minister, so there really wasn't much science taught the whole year. He got fired for it, which was a surprising victory.

We are just told it is proven by science, you ca believe what you want blah blah blah politically correct bs inserted hear blah blah for 10 mins, then the lesson begins.

If you didn't know any better, you'd think Ottawa science classes were conceived of in a world without religion at all. Not only is Evolution taught, there is no mention of creationism.... anywhere.

My high school biology teacher openly mocked religion and creationism, much to the consternation of his more religious students (one of whom boasted about getting a "C" instead of an "A" in the class for refusing to recant his belief in creationism by selecting the wrong answer for every evolution-related test question).

^This was in Southern California about 15-20 years ago

"you'd think Ottawa science classes were conceived of in a world without religion at all."

Yes, it would be much better for them to highlight how science has had to struggle against religion every step of the way.

Uhhhh.....tell me where, in *any* significant numbers, evolution is not accepted truth in public schools? And no...you can't pull out some oddball district in Texas and pretend it's the norm...because it isn't. I think this whole topic is bogus.

Oh no, you hear all about how religion acts as friction against our progress. But that's in History, English, and Law related courses. Science just sticks to the facts, just like it should.

I don't really think the debate has to be a religious issue. Evolution is fact. Christians can believe the bible, and fact, and live rich, full lives. Part of the problem is that the issue is treated like one side versus another, when it really doesn't have to be.

"Science just sticks to the facts, just like it should"

That's completely wrong.

Science is not about fact at all.

My original source: http://www.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/evolution.asp

Also: http://oi44.tinypic.com/1zxwsb6.jpg

In fact, if anything, there are no "facts" in science.

Fact.

Only theories...

@Samwest - Evolution is NOT fact. It is a theory. There may be a certain amount of evidence to support it, but that does not make it fact. Your science teachers have done you a disservice.

It is a fact that evolution is a theory.

It is the most commonly accepted theory. Can you honestly place creationism anywhere near it? No.

Pardon me for using the wrong terminology, I admit it's wrong, but I was trying to make a point, not write a legal document.

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly supported and verified by vast quantities of evidence. Evolution is 'more' fact than theory but the word 'fact' implies an absolutism that can never be qualified in the face of super-naturalism. We know that gravity exists, there is overwhelming evidence, but at the same time is hard to categorically deny someone who might say that gravity is actually just the force of an invisible God who drags everything to the Earth's surface.

Yeah, what Rommel said.

How do senior citizens like Krellin still not understand the meaning of scientific theory?

*We know that gravity exists (for example),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kHk4RFAROg

"Evolution is NOT fact. It is a theory"

There are theories (speculation - a starting point for further investigation) and then there are theories (scientific models which withstood scrutiny by scientists to the point where they are considered facts). Evolution falls in the latter category.

The way the proponents of creationism use the word "theory" it means to them "some random shit some Satan worshipping asshole thought up when he was getting sodomized while high on pot"

What "theory" really means is the current best fit for the evidence that we have. Gravity is a theory. Our entire understanding of physics is basically one giant theory. Theories are accepted as accurate until we get information that contradicts them. Then we adjust the theory to fit new data.

Sometimes a scientific theory is more a postulate needing testing, hence revisions.like Hawking is doing with some of his own theories. These have less to do with evidence and more to do with educated guess work, but the education and knowledge of the one doing thevguessimg is such that I'd trust their guesses above some ancient text that says the earth is the center of everything and the universe is less than 8000 years old.