The reason evolution is a philosophy, developed from a linear logic, and not a science.. is that it's primary postulates reject a Creator. Real Science makes no such assumption, and regards this as outside its realm of competence. You miss the point of Evolution if you think that it merely addresses a process and makes no assertion of supernatural design. Like all philosophies it begins with a premis and develops a rationale and a self contained logic founded on faith, or lack thereof. Evolution in fact is a fundamentally and militantly atheistic system.
Speak for yourself....God is not guesswork where I am concerned.
As for this non issue. The Province of Alberta is NOT dropping evolution from the curriculum, nor is it adding creationism to the curriculum. It is allowing parents the RIGHT to exclude their kids from subject matter that would go against their own religeous teachings
It is a public school system. Homeschool them or send them to private school.
There is no such thing as a biology class without evolution. Any teaching of geology is almost out of the question as well. How about the dinosaurs? Can they be taught that the dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans inhabited this planet?
Just wait until the Muslims start making their own religious demans regarding public schools. Can't teach that women are equal to men!
Didn't your courts suceed in using the first amendment to prevent it in the end? I am not so sure our courts have that sort of power for the wording of this particular law. Shameful day in Canadian history if this bill comes to pass.
I'm not sure how they kept creationism out of public schools, but for the time being it is out. Some private schools do teach both.
However, if the government omits to teach something (like evolution), I seriously doubt that courts will get involved. Omitting to teach evolution may be stupid thing to do, it will do incalculable harm to the kids, but I don’t think it is unconstitutional.
Wrong again. If you claim someone's belief is false or erroneous it is incumbent on you to prove your position. If you can't then you need to shut the hell up and let them alone.
Wulfie, this statement of your is astounding. It really shows that you donít understand the scientific method.
So let me get this straight. Let me repeat the claim in my previous post. Suppose I say that on the dark side of moon there is a detached house, with floor made form Swiss cheese and the swimming pool filled with maple syrup.
Now, if you challenge my assertion, then you have to prove that I am wrong? That is crazy. Then one could postulate all kinds of crazy hypothesize, they must be regarded as valid or must be proved wrong.
Planck is Europe's first mission to study the relic radiation from the Big Bang. Ever since the detection of small fluctuations in the temperature of this radiation, called Cosmic Microwave Background, astronomers have used the fluctuations to understand both the origin of the Universe and the formation of galaxies.
Planck will look back at the dawn of time, close to the Big Bang, about 14 thousand million years ago. This satellite is ESA's 'time machine'. Using it astronomers will be able to travel back in time, towards the beginning of space and time as we know it now. Its ultimate goal will be to help astronomers in deciding which theories on the birth and evolution of the Universe are correct. Some of the key questions Planck will answer are:
- Will the Universe continue its expansion forever, or will it collapse into a 'Big Crunch'?
- What is the age of the Universe?
- What is the nature of the so-called 'dark matter' (which may account for more than 90% of the total amount of matter in the Universe but that has never been detected directly)?
- What is the nature of dark energy (a hypothetical form of energy that may account for the Universeís expansion at an accelerating rate)?
ESA - Space Science - Planck overview (external - login to view)
Quoting Dexter Sinister Realistically, I think we do have to concede that a good understanding of evolution might be pretty corrosive to religious belief, especially for those on the more fundamentalist side.
For the fundamental believers I think that's pretty safe to say, and those are the types of parents who will make noise when they don't get a notice for a subject they feel infringes on their right to religion in their family.
I wonder what the costs will be for school boards now because of this. I don't see how it's needed, as parents can already have their children excused from classes.
I don't think Gerry is attacking people that disagree with him. He's attacking people that just can't grasp the concept. This thread is not about the pros and cons of evolution or creationism.
I have pondered on what the costs would be to the school boards,