Thought that was interesting that her main concern was that somebody might be offended by evolution being taught in schools.

wanting to slit my wrists. If any of those girls were my daughter I'd slap her silly.

Aren't many of these girls already silly?

I don't really understand why this is always such a huge debate. Personally, I don't really think that they're has to be a decision one way or the other. Rather, I think that the merits of each should be discussed in the proper context in what they mean to society. For instance, teach the basics of evolution and specifically point out that because most species are linked through DNA past the simplest organisms, that's one way in which we are able to do experiments to advance science through work on animals and such. Also discuss why the Bible is controversial and why not everyone believes in it. It took me a long time to finally realize that most people seem to have a problem with the Old Testament and the crazy things that are written in there and how atheists for instance see it as a reason that Christianity isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially given the fact that religion uses it sometimes for justification of bad behavior. All of the teachings should focus back to reality and what is truly best for society. For instance, at least teach that not everyone views stem cell research as baby killing and maybe even mention that God killed babies in the Bible. We need to focus on educating our children so that they are better equipped to function in the real world period and advance science to the point where we can all live better lives together. Just my two cents.

I nominate you for 'The Man'.

because the population is so extensive/diverse, these type "questions" are one-way tickets to Brain-Deadening, U.S.A.

... is that creationism is not science. If you want to discuss what the bible says about the origins of species it should be done in a comparitive religions class, not science classes.

And once you open that floodgate, there's no reason just to talk about the bible. What about the kuran, the gita, egyptian book of the dead, the vedas, etc.

Evolution is demonstrable, testable, and has never been debunked. Creationism is unfalsifiable, untestable, and cannot by definition be taught in science classes.

You might as well teach intelligent falling alongside the theory of gravity.

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You might as well teach intelligent falling
> alongside the theory of gravity.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

Cheers,

Baura the Wonder Dog

1+

The idea that there is a "controversy" is at the root of the "wedge" strategy being promoted by the know-nothings at the so-called "Discovery Institute." Such a claim is utter nonsense.

It does not belong in a science curriculum, period, anymore than UFO studies or stories of Bigfoot or Mothman... Teachers who promote "Intelligent Design" are engaged in lying, whether intentional or simply passed on, and a Dover Pennsylvania judge ruled as such, commenting on how ID proponents were simply teaching religion.

Math classes do not teach that the square root of two is a rational number or that the value of pi is "3" (as one state legislature tried make it at one time). Science teaching needs to avoid similar pitfalls.

Creationism can be taught in religion classes, of course, but one reason I've encountered so much confusion and lack of basic knowledge here among people raised in the LDS Faith is because they took seminary alongside their science classes, and many--not all--of their religion teachers told them they didn't need to believe in evolution (the LDS Church's views on that one is schizoid at best), and as a result they didn't pay attention in secondary school.

I can write effectively about science because I was paying attention in a high school biology class (actually with a horrible teacher, but I was a TA for another teacher on the side) as well as a good high school genetics class. And despite having no other science classes, I tested out--with credit--of all college science requirements with a score in the 99th percentile.

Among other issues, biology should involve teaching the inter-connections of species, something that is obvious from observation and confirmed by the latest advances in molecular genetics and DNA studies. Cats such as lions and tigers are closely related because they shared a common ancestor fairly recently (and can interbreed as a result); smaller felines lack the ability to "roar" (but can purr), and as a result, we see they aren't as closely related. Domesticated dogs are closely related to wolves (from which they're descended), less so to foxes, jackals, and other canines.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2011 09:54PM by SL Cabbie.

What do they mean "both sides?"

There is science and there is creation mythology.

But if you are going to get into creation mythology, there is more than one story to tell. There are thousands of sides.

And the thing that was debatable was teaching creationism.

I wonder what their answers would be if the question was should creationism be taught?

I saw this and it really blew my mind. I actually thought that we as a nation were out of the dark ages, but as one of the contestants said, she's never even learned evolution in school.

They think it is just a philosophy and people can choose what to believe. It's frightening to think that they will likely be going into positions of power and influence at some time. Kind of like Sarah Palin. ouch.

I frightens me as an atheist that I am so much in the minority, too. I had no idea. I think I must have been involved in wishful thinking to assume there were more logical people in our country. Very sad for me.

The Motrix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw this and it really blew my mind. I actually
> thought that we as a nation were out of the dark
> ages, but as one of the contestants said, she's
> never even learned evolution in school.
>
> They think it is just a philosophy and people can
> choose what to believe. It's frightening to think
> that they will likely be going into positions of
> power and influence at some time. Kind of like
> Sarah Palin. ouch.
>
> I frightens me as an atheist that I am so much in
> the minority, too. I had no idea. I think I must
> have been involved in wishful thinking to assume
> there were more logical people in our country.
> Very sad for me.

Well, just because some airhead was asleep or busy texting when evolution was covered doesn't mean it wasn't taught. Lots of kids are pretty clueless. I had a student come in one day during my free period. He wanted to hang out in my room because he didn't like his class. I asked him what the subject was and he, honest to God, did not know, and this was halfway throught the year. AS far as I know evolution is taught. It is in Utah.

I'm sure it is -- a law passed in about 67 said that schools cannot teach creationism. I'm not sure what these girls think they are learning.

The Motrix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure it is -- a law passed in about 67 said
> that schools cannot teach creationism. I'm not
> sure what these girls think they are learning.

Like a lot of kids, they are listening to Ipods, texting, sleeping, doing their nails and paying no attention whatsoever. Even if those things are stopped, you can't make someone actually listen if they don't want to. The best you can do is make them look like they are listening.

We discussed evolution in world studies classes and I always taught it as fact, but told the kids they were free to believe what they liked.They didn't have to swear that it was true or endorse it if it made them uncomfortable. However, they were responsible for the material just as they would be in any other unit.It certainly isn't asking too much to expect them to understand what it is that they don't believe.I didn't have much trouble with it. Some kids wanted to argue, but those who cared about their grades learned the facts. Even if it didn't change their minds then, it may have sowed some seeds.

+100 for Bona Dea!!

The good ole USA, where the Xtians always get their way, not matter how regressive and utterly stupid it is.

If a kid wrote down 2+2=5, I marked him wrong; similarly, if he said Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote "Huckleberry Finn," I marked his answer wrong as well. I didn't give them a speech about how they were free to believe what they wanted on stuff like that unless I was in a really sarcastic mood and was letting them know I was upholding their innate right to look foolish (and being in a sarcastic mood could get me in trouble).

Now in areas of my expertise--the English language--I did tell them they were free to choose in some instances, like whether to pronounce the "t" in often...

Evolution = fact; Intelligent Design ≠ legitimate science

I'm from the Ralph Kramden school of paleontology

"Hominid, hominid, hominid"

All of you are missing the point here. Miss America is all about white teeth, long legs and nice rack. End of story.

None of these idiots really believe in evolution because the contest is, and was, all about teeth, legs and boobs. 50 years of teeth, legs and boobs.

Just sayin'...

Ron

Generalized teeth that are suitable for an omnivorous diet, long legs to cover consider territory while walking (early hominids on the African savannah may have been partly scavengers), and oh, yes, those boobies...

Secondary sex characteristics visible from a long way off... Pendant breasts are not necessary for milk production. so Desmond Morris speculated that they had another role...

http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-Zoologists-Study-Animal/dp/0385334303

Lips are theorized to have arisen for the same reason, and as for those hineys, buttocks arose to offer a counterweight to permit upright walking...

Any physical anthros want to chime in with stuff I may have missed?

And then he "fine-tuned" our habitat to accomodate our monkey bodies.

He created plants and animals to accomodate our generalized teeth.

He created considerable distances to give our long legs purpose.

I think you may have it all backwards...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2011 01:46PM by kolobian.

You missed my point. I'm speaking to the basis for the Miss American pageant in the first place. It has not evolved over 50 years. Started with teeth, legs and boobs and here, 50 years later, it's still founded upon teeth, legs and boobs. Not that I mind, mind you, but if the pageant itself doesn't promote evolution, then how can one expect contestants to speak to the topic intelligently.

Just sayin'...

Ron

Right. The pageant is an institutionalized evaluation of genetic material.

I posted a link for this on FB. Welcome to the United States of Duhmerica.