Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[coldstream]

How do you explain a tailbone?

How do you explain the eye. There is no rational explanation of how a complex, corporate and interdependent system evolved to discern and organize the light spectrum into an intellectually comprehensible composition through some mutation of a gene. There are too many parts that would have had to develop independently and learn to cooperate for a given purpose, without that purpose having been established in the first place.

The intellect itself (the mind rather than the brain), with its subjective sentient quality, has no explanation in evolution.

If evolution were the sole explanation of life, you would see a rationalization and conformity in life forms, rather than what we see, its complexification.

 

[captain morgan]

It's a shame you're a ridiculous, stereotypical troll, looking for a fight. :thebirdman:

Blow me.

Here's an idea Einstein.... Take a look at the original post.. Read it (or have someone read it too you) and consider exactly who wrote the post and why they wrote (maybe leave the 'why' part to your care-giver) and then tell us all about trolls...

RE: your final request - What's the matter? Is your Ma on strike til you settle-up your existing bill?

 

[lone wolf]

How do you explain the eye. There is no rational explanation of how a complex, corporate and interdependent system evolved to discern and organize the light spectrum into an intellectually comprehensible composition through some mutation of a gene. There are too many parts that would have had to develop independently and learn to cooperate for a given purpose. \

The intellect itself (the mind rather than the brain), with its subjective sentient quality, has no explanation in evolution.

If evolution were the sole explanation of life, you would see a rationalization and conformity in life forms, rather than what we see, its complexification.

So how does a monkey see? Why do we have the remnants of a tailbone?

 

[Ron in Regina]

More interesting that the eye, is the lack of (well...it's still there but
non-functional) in many cave dwelling critters that have been cut off
from their surface cousins for several thousand years. 8O
____________________

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is where you and I differ. You want students to be required to take whatever teaching the school system delivers. I can see that some people might want to opt out of having their kids take certain things.

Your perspective seems to be that whatever the government puts in the curriculum must be required; what would you say if the government decided to teach creationism?

We most certainly differ on this, Tenpenny. I don’t think there should be any choice, any opting out of anything taught in schools, at least in the primary school. In secondary school of course students have electives and they have some latitude in deciding what they want to learn (though even here there is the core curriculum).

If you decide to make some subjects optional, then where does it end? Do we make Physics, Chemistry optional? How about English language courses, should we make those optional as well?

As to government deciding to teach Creationism, government must not do that. Anyway, if some government decided to teach Creationism, they will be slapped with a lawsuit and a cease and desist order the same day. The whole notion of teaching creationism will be put on hold by the courts. In the subsequent trial, courts will most likely rule that teaching creationism is tantamount to teaching religion, and hence unconstitutional (as happened in USA, Supreme Court ruled by 7-2 vote that teaching creationism is same as teaching religion).

So it is certainly possible that some government may try to mandate teaching of Creationism (though in Canada, only Alberta is a possible suspect in this matter), but the attempt won’t be successful.

 

[earth_as_one]

How could something as complex as the human eye develop naturally? More importantly, how could it develop in gradual stages while still being functional? The eye's evolution is actually quite simple, starting as primitive light-sensitive cells with gradual improvements over about 364,000 years.

Not only have scientists discovered how such a complex eye could have evolved from a light-sensitive cell, proving the process is not impossible, but every stage of the eye's development can be seen in nature!

 

[L Gilbert]

Evolution is really not a science. It is a philosophical system.

lmao That's a really funny opinion. Evolution is simply a scientific story based upon evidence that tells a story about how life works and the history of life on earth to a point. It is fact. It is not a maybe. Evolution occurs.

The mechanisms that actuate evolution, random genetic mutation that subject themselves to natural selection and survival, is a theory that has developed in a vacuum. It can't explain the origins of life, but it rejects a Creator, and a design, beyond that which is dictated by the laws of survival of the fittest. I don't really have a problem with evolution being taught as a philosophy, in balance with Theistic, or Deistic systems as well. But it should not be taught as a science, relegating everything else to the realm superstition and nonsense.

Evolution does NOT necessarily reject a creator or creators, design, etc. It simply excludes them because there is no evidence supporting them. Call it a pjilosophy if you like, but evolution is as much a fact as chemistry or any other science.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

How do you explain the eye. There is no rational explanation of how a complex, corporate and interdependent system evolved to discern and organize the light spectrum into an intellectually comprehensible composition through some mutation of a gene.

Yes there is, actually, same as there's one for the bacterial flagellar motor, the immune system, and all the other things commonly put forward as examples of irreducible complexity. That argument has been bankrupted repeatedly. You clearly do not understand the theory at all. Do some reading here, , and check your nearest library or bookstore for Richard Dawkins' books, The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Ancestor's Tale...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Did the CBC happen to mention that they have a massive majority?... They don't have to hide anything in order to get it through the house and, presumably, as they represent the vast majority of the voters, this is what they want.

BTW - No one, so far, has offered any form of reasonable argument as to how this education legislation is different (in principle) from the individual rights' issues that have consumed these forums to date.

You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle once you've let it out.

Quite right, Captain, Alberta government does not have to worry about it getting though the legislature, they have a big majority.

However, they do have to worry about getting ridiculed. They do have to worry about Alberta becoming the butt of joke, the laughing stock of the world. So I can well understand why they would want to bury it deep inside another bill.

Alberta government does not have to worry abut Alberta; they have to worry about rest of the world.

And individual rights issue is a spurious, specious argument, it doesn’t apply here. Government has the right to decide what should be taught in the schools, nobody has the right to second guess the government (except people at the polls). There are obvious restriction, of course, such as government may not teach religion (or Creationism) in schools, may not teach hate propaganda etc. But for the most part, government has the right to decide what is taught in schools. There is no right in the Charter which says that parents have a veto over what is taught in schools, or that parents may withdraw their kids from any course that the parents disagree with.

 

[L Gilbert]

For the 50th time (give or take a few) I will post this link that I hope you people who post ignorant comments concerning eyes, complex structures, etc. read. Not that I expect you to understand much of it, but a little might sink in anyway.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Every time man claimed to understand the true nature of the universe, we've proven ourselves wrong eventually. The world is flat, then it isn't. The Earth is the center of the universe, then its the sun, now its unknown. No scientist would claim that science is absolute or infallible. Science is just the best explanation we have right now based on the evidence.

One day we may discover the earth is indeed flat, when we take into account the other 8 dimensions we can't see.
String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what is your point, earth_as_one? Should we not teach any science in classrooms, for fear that it may be proved wrong 20 or 30 years from now? Should we not teach the kids that earth is round, for fear that someday we may discover that it is false? That is nonsense.

Kids should be given a proper science education. That includes scientific concepts which are not in dispute, which have been accepted by a broad consensus of scientists. That is the only way for kids to learn science.

If you are worried that scientific consensus is wrong (and sometimes it is) and hence should not be taught to kids, that will mean end of science education in schools. That would be the surest way to raise ignoramuses.

Kids must be taught scientific consensus, so that they my grow up to be competent, capable scientists and perhaps challenge the very consensus that they were taught in schools.

 

[captain morgan]

Alberta government does not have to worry abut Alberta; they have to worry about rest of the world.

And individual rights issue is a spurious, specious argument, it doesn’t apply here. Government has the right to decide what should be taught in the schools, nobody has the right to second guess the government (except people at the polls). There are obvious restriction, of course, such as government may not teach religion (or Creationism) in schools, may not teach hate propaganda etc. But for the most part, government has the right to decide what is taught in schools. There is no right in the Charter which says that parents have a veto over what is taught in schools, or that parents may withdraw their kids from any course that the parents disagree with.

SJP.... Alberta hasn't worried about what anyone else in the Ont/Que based solar-system thinks in the past. Why would we care now?

In terms of the remainder of your post. It seems that you contradict yourself. The individual rights angle is exactly what this is about (or it will boil-down too). Education is a provincial responsibility and it is the AB gvt that is passing any legislation. That said, if the feds really want to poke their melting-pot/cultural mosaic nose into the fray, the Ab gvt can always use the notwithstanding clause to excuse themselves.

Extrapolating this argument. You state that gvt determines what is taught in schools and no individual can second-guess/challenge gvt.... He's the catch:

The collective body of individuals are the gvt...

 

[earth_as_one]

If creation "theory" makes it into the classroom, then every religious group's creation "theory" should be taught in a class called Creation Mythology. Otherwise we are unfairly biasing public education in favor of one religious groups belief's system at the expense of other religions and real science. Effectively turning public schools into religious indoctrination.

My favorite creation myth is Turtle Island.
Native Legends - the Creation of Turtle Island

Also, from Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time"

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Turtle Island, Judeo-Christianity and most accepted scientific theories regarding creation rely on infinite regression beliefs.

If things like gods can exist without a cause then why have gods? Why can't the universe itself exist without a cause cutting out the middle man so to speak???

 

[In Between Man]

I think we should teach microevolution in school and leave the marcoevolution and ID for the debate class. That's how my high school did it. Needless to say, yours truly kicked ass in the debate course.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Science can't disprove religion. That would be logically impossible. You can't prove a negative.

Quite right, earh_as_one, I have myself said so many times. You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, you cannot prove a negative (incidentally, that is why burden of proof is upon those who claim that God exists).

However many religious based theories about nature and the universe have been disproven by the evidence, not science.

Not quite. They are disproved by evidence and by the scientific method. Scientific method has laid down criteria for disproving any theory, and religious theories have been disproved by evidence and by scientific method. Without scientific method evidence alone will be meaningless. Without applying scientific method, a religion based theory is always right, since it is based upon faith, which no amount of evidence can disprove.

Is it possible creation theory is right? Sure why couldn't an omnipotent God create the earth complete with a fossil record and geological clues suggesting the earth was billions of years old. If he did that, I'd say he has one hell of a sense of humor.

Certainty it is possible. And why limit yourself to billion of years ago, I would say that we cannot disprove that earth was created 5000 years ago in six days (or 1000 years ago in one day, or ten minutes ago in one second etc.)

As somebody once said (offhand I cannot remember who it was), one can formulate any theory about the origin of universe, if no proof is needed no support it. I could say that the whole universe was created just an instant ago, complete with all the fossil records, all the evidence of old age of the universe, including the hole in my sock.

So we certainly cannot rule out that universe was created 5000 years ago in six days. However, that is not what science tells us

 

[earth_as_one]

So what is your point, earth_as_one? Should we not teach any science in classrooms, for fear that it may be proved wrong 20 or 30 years from now? Should we not teach the kids that earth is round, for fear that someday we may discover that it is false? That is nonsense.

Kids should be given a proper science education. That includes scientific concepts which are not in dispute, which have been accepted by a broad consensus of scientists. That is the only way for kids to learn science.

If you are worried that scientific consensus is wrong (and sometimes it is) and hence should not be taught to kids, that will mean end of science education in schools. That would be the surest way to raise ignoramuses.

Kids must be taught scientific consensus, so that they my grow up to be competent, capable scientists and perhaps challenge the very consensus that they were taught in schools.

My point is that every theory we've ever had regarding the nature of the universe has eventually been proven wrong eventually. But that doesn't mean studying these theories were a waste of time. On the contrary, some of these theories are still useful. Classical Newtonian physics is wrong, but is good enough for approximations and guesstimates in most situations. Just don't try to pilot a space ship or run a particle accelerator based on that theory. But its fine for cars and diving off cliffs.

I would never be so arrogant as to claim that we now know the true nature of the universe or present any scientific theory as irrefutable. All theories should be framed with the qualifier that they are theories and could be disproven, hopefully by one of your students.

Children should even discuss scientific theories which have been discredited. At one time Europeans believed that leaves that fell on the ground turned into birds and leaves that fell into the water turned into fish. Some students will find obvious flaws in the "leaf" theory and now you have a great starting point for a discussion regarding critical thought and analysis.

 

[L Gilbert]

Not all theories about the universe have been proven wrong. Some have merely been amended. The theory of evolution has been amended here and there many times. The basic premise is still the same, though.

 

[L Gilbert]

However many religious based theories about nature and the universe have been disproven by the evidence, not science.

Not quite. They are disproved by evidence and by the scientific method. Scientific method has laid down criteria for disproving any theory, and religious theories have been disproved by evidence and by scientific method. Without scientific method evidence alone will be meaningless. Without applying scientific method, a religion based theory is always right, since it is based upon faith, which no amount of evidence can disprove.

I wish you would learn how to click the "quote this" button.
Anyway, The scientific method is not about disproving anything. It is a guideline to show how to get observations accepted as viable descriptions of our universe and how it works.

Is it possible creation theory is right? Sure why couldn't an omnipotent God create the earth complete with a fossil record and geological clues suggesting the earth was billions of years old. If he did that, I'd say he has one hell of a sense of humor.

Certainty it is possible. And why limit yourself to billion of years ago, I would say that we cannot disprove that earth was created 5000 years ago in six days (or 1000 years ago in one day, or ten minutes ago in one second etc.)

Then I'd say you were ignorant of what science can do.

As somebody once said (offhand I cannot remember who it was), one can formulate any theory about the origin of universe, if no proof is needed no support it. I could say that the whole universe was created just an instant ago, complete with all the fossil records, all the evidence of old age of the universe, including the hole in my sock.

So we certainly cannot rule out that universe was created 5000 years ago in six days. However, that is not what science tells us

Might as well say that there is no proof that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen then.:roll:

 

[wulfie68]

incidentally, that is why burden of proof is upon those who claim that God exists

No. The burden of proof rests with anyone making a claim. If you claim God doesn't exist, you share an equal burden as those who claim he does exist: you don't get a free pass just because you take an opposing view.

 

[L Gilbert]

At any rate, AB's school system and particularly its government will be much ridiculed if it passes any inane bill implying that evolution isn't a fact. They might as well start burning witches.