Father's Lawsuit Claims Teaching Of Evolution Will Hinder Daughter's Future Veterinarian Career - what say you?

Yup. Pretty much my argument about people that don't think climate change has a human component.

Good one!

Please show me where I commented on the current litigation at all.

I have commented on evolution and the Scopes trial in this thread mainly because I have something to say about them and the bottom-line question was about teaching evolution, not the trial itself.

Father's Lawsuit Claims Teaching Of Evolution Will Hinder Daughter's Future Veterinarian Career - what say you, 1LT Nick Kidwell ?

You should comment on the litigation. That's the whole purpose of this thread. But we can talk about anything, really, if you want. You don't have to be so defensive, though. Try and have fun with it. You might even learn something, teacher.

You're still coming across as rude and snarky, which is especially annoying because you really know nothing about me yet continue to make assumptions.

I commented on what interested me, not the current litigation. Since you can't seem to do anything but snark and post memes, I'm outta here.

Okay, 1LT Nick Kidwell . My only assumption was that you're teaching fantasies to your english class, not your science class, which we corrected. I directly answered every single one of your comments on my response, but you're right. I'm the one being evasive and rude. Thanks for stopping by, sir. See you when you have something relevant to discuss, or you have cat-pictures of your own.

The problem with Creationsim is that it is generally based on religious dogma. With evolution, you can at least point to evidence to support the theory, as well as conduct experiments to test it. Room for both exists, however one is not appropriate to be taught in the secular environment.

LTC Paul Labrador I nominate this officer for president of the universe.

MAJ Anne McGee ". . .Creationism needs to be taught to balance it out." which version of creationism are you referring to? YEC? This is flat-out contradicted by scientific knowledge, and should NEVER be taught in science class, except in the context of teaching kids the difference between 'ideology' and 'scientific theory'. Science isn't about balance. It's about evidence. evidence for creationism is weak.

Science does not require blind faith. That's religion. If you don't like something a scientist says, ask them to prove it. You'll be able to prove it all by yourself if they're accurate.

Evolution should be understood and never ignored by anyone in the medical field that makes any kind of real decision regarding healthcare, PERIOD.

Whatever made you believe that people with faith have blind faith?

You must have known some messed-up "Christians" in your time.

Interesting thing about civil actions is the winner, regardless of the award, can claim legal costs. So if this guy wins the jury lottery and gets $1, his lawyer can claim several hundreds of $$ legal costs.

He is representing himself, so how is that going to work?

PO2 (Join to see) -- Good catch on the self-representation. That certainly lowers the legal fees.

I used to have the same opinion back in my college days.

However, I now accept Creationism because 1) I have read and studied about evidence for alternate explanations for origins of species, 2) I have the ability to look at existing evidence from outside the existing paradigm and can look at new evidence with eyes unaffected by the existing paradigm and 3) I personally believe the Bible to be the Word of God and the Genesis account to be true as written.

Not exactly .. your choices are pretty much restricted by your major .. if you want to graduate.

You can't learn biology properly without understanding the theory evolution, guy.

Why would you teach kids mythology? Were you an english teacher? This was my favorite part of that class. Greek and Roman mythology was always more fun for me. The stories are very dramatic.

Apparently you didn't catch the phrase "science teacher in a Christian school," and understand that YEC is part of the prescribed curriculum.

I didn't. I was having phone issues ATM, so I couldn't check it either.

You ought to know better, then. Throw that curriculum out and get one that fits reality better. You know, a science curriculum that teaches SCIENCE (weird, right?).

Of course, I am assuming your teaching of YEC is the belief system (Notice I didn't say scientific theory, because it isn't one.) commonly espoused as an opposing view of the more popular of scientific theories.

Edit: p.s. to return this to OP, I say if she didn't like her education, then she should have sought it elsewhere. The courts have already ruled that the theory of evolution itself is not a religion, and have done so righteously, justifiably, and if it goes to court again, it'll happen again. Even if there was a religion based on this theory, it wouldn't invalidate it's scientific merit.

This man is wrong.

Shame on me?

Shame on you for outright dismissing the points behind YEC without even looking at the evidence. I suspect you're dismissing it simply because it has a faith-based premise.

And shame on you for presuming to tell me how to do what I do. Unless you have been in my shoes and walked my walk, you don't know where I've been and what I've learned. Suffice it to say, I wouldn't have accepted a science teaching job at a Christian school it if I had even the slightest doubt about YEC.

I used to be a deep-time guy too, until I read enough published research to change my mind. Admittedly, most of this research was indeed faith-based, but quite a bit of secular research was in there too.

I suppose one of the biggest differences between YEC researchers and secular researchers is that YEC researchers will outright admit that they have a Biblically-based bias, whereas secular researchers generally pretend they are neutral, when in fact most of them are very biased against anything that challenges the existing paradigms.

But really, science is about challenging paradigms, making sense of the information you have before you, and CHANGING the paradigm when new evidence is presented. I see new information, and my paradigm has shifted.