Most American Biology Teachers DON'T Endorse Evolution Hmmmm

[elsbymike]

A theory explains FACTS. If you don't believe in evolution then don't get a flu injection because that is based on evolution. It is amazing how this is the one science that creationists attack. They don't attack any of the other science anymore. The sun doesn't rotate around the earth anymore if they had their way it would of. Evolution explains the diversity of the species. Blind faith is just that blind.

[einLesenderArbeiter]

well, after all, evolution is just a theory... kinda like gravity. derp.

[Mogley52]

SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)

[MaximusArurealius]

@Mogley52 Mogley STRIKES AGAIN! Way to go Mogley!

[PointlessSteel]

@Mogley52 dude, everybody knows the universe did not come from nothing. Nobody argues that.

[oglow100]

why do we have to learn evolution if we dont even believe in it its bulllshit!!!!

[CMO999]

WOW! I live in Canada and I can't imagine a high school teacher here behaving in such a way! That is strange.

[MaximusArurealius]

@CMO999 Of course a Canadian doesn't understand. Canadians are all completely brainwashed. They are past understanding.

[CMO999]

@MaximusArurealius You got me there. I am brainwashed, and you think that evolution is not accepted by most biology teachers.

[MaximusArurealius]

@CMO999 thanks for admitting that you're an idiot and a Canadian idiot at that.

[CMO999]

@MaximusArurealius You are making yourself look like a real asshole to anyone reading this who has at least a basic level of education. You are wearing a bright sign on your forehead that says "Ignoramus" and the funny thing is that you don't even realize it.

[MaximusArurealius]

@CMO999 wanh wanh wanh OH you puur puur widdo theeng. Did I hoit yur widdo net feewings? Is it gonna be all better now?

[CMO999]

@MaximusArurealius You didn't hurt my feelings, if anything you make me a little bit embarrassed. The level of ignorance and immaturity that you display is obscene.

[MaximusArurealius]

@CMO999 OH wanh wanh wanh here's a bottle so you can stop crying widdo babee.

[einLesenderArbeiter]

i learned about evolution in my high school. woo.

[SmileyVlog]

If evolution isn't taught, yet the "the nation's report card" test has evolution on it, then obviously students are going to score lower. Basically, the cards were stacked against the students from the get-go.

However, the article could deliberately be twisting and using the *evidence* as a scape goat to say that the reason for the drop is because evolution isn't being taught in schools. They didn't do well in *science*, not specifically biology.

Lack of specifics seem manipulative...

[endthedisease]

Well, most high school teachers aren't really that smart. Any student that has been on the honor roll knows that.

[2bsirius]

@endthedisease

I guess I worried about the intelligence of my teachers in school. I just figured out the course game they were playing, learned to give them what they wanted, and then got on with doing what I liked to do --- reading everything I could find worth reading.

The results were that my grades were great , I still felt like an autodidact, and I had the best of both worlds.

Some of my least bright teachers led me to some very intriguing places by following that technique.

[epshot]

i love how the picture is of a drawing of questions marks pointing to a man with cut styled hair, shoes, a shirt and pants on. Why don't the creationists ever use a pictre of a naked man or woman, untrimmed? they use a clean cut representation of humans because that image furthers us away from nature. makes uss look more unnatural i guess. they always do that. in reality, put a human through the stresses of living in nature with no barbers of razors or tooth brushes, and use that image instead.

[TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE]

Bible bi bul le blaa laa laabible laa

[silversoul7]

What is interesting about evolution is it actually doesn't function like most other scientific theories. It's more of a principle than a theory. Karl Popper was quite conflicted over this, as evolution did not seem to meet the standard of falsifiability which he thought all scientific theories must meet, and yet he was equally convinced of its indispensability as a scientific principle.

[gregrutz]

@silversoul7 Just find a bunny fossil in the Cambrian Period and you will prove evolution wrong. Find an animal or plant that doesn't fit on Darwin's tree of life [ a Crocoduck] and you would prove evolution wrong.

[silversoul7]

@gregrutz Not really. Anomalies like you mention would simply mean we'd have to rethink what we thought about the course of evolution, but it would not falsify evolution as a theory. We would subsequently go about searching for transitional fossils leading up to the Crocoduck.

[gregrutz]

@silversoul7 You do know that Camron said 'evolutionist have been looking for one of these' [crocoduck] He thought that evolutionists needed to find this missing link. A crocoduck does not fit on darwins tree of life and WOULD PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG .

[silversoul7]

@gregrutz No, I really don't think you're getting it. Darwin's tree of life is not the be-all and end-all of evolution. It could be revised and still maintain the theory. The only way this crocoduck would disprove evolution is if you could prove it didn't have a line of descent, which would be next to impossible, given the fact that you'd be trying to prove a negative with an incomplete fossil record. There is plenty of positive evidence of evolution, but nothing that could easily falsify it

[gregrutz]

@silversoul7 The point is there is no line of descent for a Crocoduck. Kirk says evolutionists are looking for one like it was a missing link or something. But of coures creationist don't understand evolution so they can't prove it wrong. All you need to do is find a land animal in the Cambrian Period. A human fossils with the dinosaur fossils. OR a dinosaur fossils with the trilobites. What proves evolution is the fact that it all fits. There are no crocoducks.

[silversoul7]

@gregrutz Of course there are no crocoducks. But if there were it would not prove evolution false. It just force us to re-examine what we previously thought about the line of descent. It would not falsify evolution, but merely serve as an anomaly. This is not so much a criticism of evolution as it is of Karl Popper's falsification criteria. Major scientific theories are not overturned by a single anomaly but by paradigm shifts that explain numerous anomalies.

[chefedegaru]

I dont see why teachers should endorse evolution if they dont personally believe it. My close friend iwas amazing RN, now a bio teacher in a high school. studied biology and other sciences for years and years. Still gets up at the crack of dawn every sunday and heads to church. Her faith doesnt impair her ability to teach and understand the subject. Just like my lack of faith didnt impair my ability to test well in a theology class i took in college.

[gregrutz]

@chefedegaru So if a teacher does not ''believe'' in Gravity he can teach anything he wants. Bull Shit.

[Harizl]

@chefedegaru

What does the truthful reality of evolution have to do with personal beliefs?

IN-CLASS endorsement should in no way be affected by personal beliefs.

It really isn't their fault, it is an effect of the retarding propaganda and teachers reluctance to actively bring the subject up in order to avoid crea-tards. I don't blame them for not doing it.

If there was millions of church dollars spent bashing long division, teachers would probably be reluctant as well.

[DeathsPictures]

I'm just guessing, but it's one thing to teach a prospective teacher how to teach things to other people. it's quite another for a teacher to know how or if the things they teach is even true or not. I mean, for instance not all history teachers are archeologists, or for that matter not all science teachers are actual scientists.

[72daystar]

Indeed. I hope things are not so bad in Canada, but I may be disappointed.

[Desertphile]

An astonishing number of high school graduates don't know why summer is warm and winter is cold, nor know evolution is a fact, nor know anthropogenic global warming is a fact, nor know what an atom is. It's utterly horrifying.

[universalJok3r]

wel if you were at risk of losing your only job because the local school board is made up entirely of hardline christian fundamentalists, you'de want to be treading a very fine line too.

[fliegeroh]

I don't want to believe in the theory of Relativity, because it is not mentioned in the Bible. I don't think it should be taught in public schools. I think Physics teachers should teach Relativity but should also teach Creationism (or Intelligent Design if you prefer) and let the student make up his own mind. I don't want to believe in the Kinetic Theory of Gases because it is not mentioned in the Bible. I don't think it should be taught in public schools. I think ...........

[intellsoul]

@fliegeroh

@fliegeroh

I guess you believe in the giants "men of honor" and in the innumerable bones of them foun aroun the world, i wonder because this is in the bible, Gen 6,4. By the way, Genesis is just a transcript of a book that belong to the babilonians, I am not sure if it was said by Zecharia Sitchin.

[Elaina43]

This is so sad.

[Flem1337]

How can you make your own mind on a subject you dont even have the brain power to comprehend it when its been prechewed and vulgarized for you. By telling the students to making their own minds on the subject is equal to telling the person to ignore the work of thousands before and start from scratch. That means they have to ignore all vulgarized data and only look at the raw data obtained, without any premade analysis. Teach what is known, not what you believe.

[floydstinkyboy]

2b, the numbers in this study are a national average right? i expect that in the mid-west and southern regions, the number is closer to 100%. those parts of this country are as ignorant and religious as can be. but hey the people vote for the school board and the board hires the teachers and the state and local gubment spends millions in public money on a jesus rides a dinosaur theme park.

[2bsirius]

@floydstinkyboy

"The state and local gubment spends millions in public money on a jesus rides a dinosaur theme park..."

Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

[Hacktor666]

@2bsirius One needs to not be an idiot to see the link between religion and being an idiot :) ... Don't you agree.

[AnXtheist]

this is a sad, sad thing. If things don't change in the US the entire country will be left behind by the more progressive secular nations.

[geodgereturns]

Inexcusable-but not surprising.

I have no problem with this 'Telling students they don't have to "believe" in evolution but they have to know it for tests.' I wholeheartedly agree with it. Science isn't a "belief". It's a "conclusion". It's 100000 times more important that we understand evolution. And I find it shocking-SHOCKING how many believe in it but don't understand it well At All. (I shouldn't be-they're products of the same crap schools). But what the hell use is that to anybody?

[AGodlessProgressive]

I remember reading about this over on PZ Myers' blog. Yeah, I'm not really surprised. I suspect most teachers are afraid of getting fired ,especially now in this economy, that if they actually teach evolution, they will probably get fired and suspended if one of the kid's parents complains about it. Also, its important to note that a lot creationist get on the school board and set the standards for the district that make it impossible to discuss evolution w/o the teacher getting in trouble.

[MetalHeart678]

I think the *theory* of evolution should be taught as a *theory*, not as a scientific truth.

Teacher and students are free to "make up their own minds" about this *theory* and they are free to reject it.

[webmaster2089]

@MetalHeart678 what about the theories of gravity or electricity?

A theory is the framework of ideas that connects scientific facts. Scientific fact: Creatures evolve. Theory: Creatures evolve by way of natural selection.

[MetalHeart678]

@webmaster2089 "Creatures" evolve indeed.

but I believe we have evolved *as* humans, not *into* humans.

and I don't believe that all living creatures have a common ancestor

and that this common ancestor emerged from some miraculous chemical reaction.

sorry, I'm not buying.

Peace.

[webmaster2089]

@MetalHeart678 haha, miraculous indeed. completely unlike forming people out of mud, or rib bones, or nothing.

anyway, disregarding that because evolution doesn't concern the origin of life (remember that) what's your problem with the theory? i take it you believe that hereditary changes are possible in living things right?

[MetalHeart678]

@webmaster2089 The theory of evolution does have implications on the origin of life, it implies that all living beings have a common ancestor and It leaves the question "how did life come about ?" unanswered.

When I said "Creatures evolve indeed", I meant we humans evolve as a whole, our societies evolve and Individuals evolve.

[webmaster2089]

@MetalHeart678 yes, you're absolutely right, it leaves that question unanswered. why? because it's not it's job to answer that question. just like it's not the job of the theory of gravity to explain where the universe came from.

but anyway, do you believe that creatures pass down genetic information from generation to generation?

[MetalHeart678]

@webmaster2089 Has the question actually been answered at all ?

Do you believe "abiogenesis" is the answer ?

Have you ever *observed* a chemical reaction which resulted in a living organism ?

Has this hypothetical event been *reproduced* in the lab ?

To answer your question : yes.

[webmaster2089]

@MetalHeart678 no but proteins have been created in a lab. they just haven't been combined into a living organism, but it seems close.

ok, so on my question, do you believe that mutations happen which change various traits of organisms?

[MetalHeart678]

@webmaster2089 ...which means that the question "how did life come about ?" is still unanswered by science, you see ?

to answer your question : No. I don't believe so.

I don't believe that fish mutated and grew legs nor do I believe that reptiles mutated and grew wings.

[webmaster2089]

@MetalHeart678 yes, the exact nature of the origin of life is unanswered by science.

on the subject of evolution, the question of mutation, however, has been answered by science. it's a scientific fact that mutations happen. if you don't know that you simply haven't learned enough about it yet.

[colourmegone]

I had a US high school education and I learned more about evolution from the film "Inherit the Wind" than I did in school.

[glennjridge]

the problem of course is that atheists jump the gun. they assume that intelligent design = anti- evolution. for me intelligent design is simply saying howver things came to be was thru a deity plans. if Dawkings himself says he is an agnostic and wont make the jump to atheism, its pretty clear the option for design cant be ruled out out of hand as if its impossible.

[gerontodon]

@glennjridge

'Intelligent design', as the people who use that term to label their position mean it, *is* 'anti-evolution', if 'evolution' means darwinian evolution by natural selection. That's because 'the blind watchmaker' is a hypothesised mindless way of creating complex functional systems, and 'intelligent design' posits that there *are* no known non-teleological explanations of such systems. I imagine that Dawkins and others don't mind theistic darwinism cos they think it's incoherent.

[webmaster2089]

@glennjridge except the intelligent design theory is incompatible with evolution, and was in fact created specifically to oppose evolution. So no jumping the gun here.

And I'm pretty sure he says he's an atheist.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@glennjridge

Though I know what you're talking about, the ID movement presents Intelligent Design as irreducible complexity, which has been disproved (even by Ken Miller, who defines himself as a theist who thinks more or less along those lines). That's what many atheists will jump the gun when you put it that way. Irreducible complexity is anti evolution but a belief in a cosmic plan is not.

[IntelligentProbe]

I'm an American, and I can atleast say for me and my schools, they didn't really teach evolution, that is, it was such a basic overview, that it couldn't be seen as anything more than misleading at best and damaging at worse. It wasn't even a whole course on it, perhaps a few days spent on it, and then back to butterflies and frogs.

[pfarabee]

My HS Biology teacher was one of the 13%.. he called fossils "devil rocks" and claimed to be able to prove the earth was only 20,000 years old.. Luckily, I didn't tear out the chapters on evolution from the textbook as he instructed us to do, but actually read it and taught myself and others about evolution behind his back.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@pfarabee

Wow, you should sue him for educational damages (is there such a thing?)

[SpiritualAtheist]

"* Telling students to make up their own minds -- even though scientists say that they are as certain of the validity of evolution as they are of other scientific principles taken as fact."

And what is wrong with that?

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@SpiritualAtheist

Wouldn't they first actually have to know the very basics about evolution to make up their own minds?It's wrong to dismiss the central theory of biology without even knowing what the theory is about.Most people would choose the atheistic or theistic/deistic interpretation of evolution.

Saying that evolutionary theory says that we evolved from monkeies or that cats will give birth to dogs really shows the ignornace backing their decision to embrace a 2000 yr old myth.

[SpiritualAtheist]

@xxSilverPhinxx  I didn't mean to imply in my comment that we don't present the evidence and argue the case. But having done that, the student still gets to make up his or her own mind. Right?

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@SpiritualAtheist

I agree with that (after all, evolutionary theory is not dogma nor is not accepting it a thought crime) but we all know that the real agenda behind intellectually dishonest "teach the *controversy*" side of the argument is not to give the student an opportunity to make up their own mind...

[2bsirius]

@SpiritualAtheist

From my reading of the article, the quote you cite should be "Telling students to make up their own minds" -- even though scientists say that they are as certain of the validity of evolution as they are of other scientific principles taken as fact.

IOW I think the part of your quote AFTER the dash is a parenthetical comment on the idea that students should make up their own minds. I don't think students were taught the conclusion that the writer included for context.

[SpiritualAtheist]

@2bsirius Actually, I looked at the article again and the clear implication is that it is wrong to let students make up their own minds on evolution. The article clearly presented this as a problem.

I think that's crazy.

[SpiritualAtheist]

@2bsirius  Karen, in retrospect I think my comment may have been a little off topic.

[2bsirius]

@SpiritualAtheist

No, I thought it was good...I, for one, had to think in depth about what you said.

Btw it's always great to hear from you.

[SpiritualAtheist]

@2bsirius Thanks. I'll have to come out of the shadows one of these days and make some more videos. Until then, I just keep on enjoying yours.

[ShallowThoughts]

@2bsirius We have limited time to teach students. We owe it to them to teach what stands up to intense, rigourous scrutiny. If the students disbelieve, they then have the freedom to study further. Don't believe in plate tectonics? Study geology and (no sarcasm here) try and prove it wrong.

You would have the students taught voodoo, healing crystals, aliens, alchemy, divining rods, a geocentric universe, whatever else, just because "it might be true and they should make up their own minds" ??

[webmaster2089]

@SpiritualAtheist Think about it. Would a physics teacher ever ask a student to make up his or her own mind about gravity? That's ridiculous. And we know way more about the mechanisms behind evolution than gravity.

[SpiritualAtheist]

@webmaster2089 I don't even want a physics teacher saying "you must believe this." Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt evolution or gravity. I'm just troubled by this notion that certain ideas must be believed - even evolution and gravity. IMHO, people (even students) should believe an idea, not as a matter of obedience to an expert, but after being persuaded by evidence and argument. Given my religious background (Mormon), perhaps I'm a bit more sensitive to this subject than most.

[fliegeroh]

@SpiritualAtheist - I don't think you have any trouble at all with the "notion that certain ideas must be believed". As a Mormon, you accept without evidence that the angel Moroni gave golden tablets to Joseph Smith in Upstate New York. This is a very strange claim indeed. The vast majority of the people in the world do not believe in this and Mormons take it basically on the authority of their founder, who by all accounts was a very troubled and dishonest man.

[SpiritualAtheist]

@fliegeroh Wow. My bad. I didn't communicate that very well. I am no longer a Mormon any longer. I am an atheist. 

[universalJok3r]

@SpiritualAtheist well as my physics teacher put it, "you might not believe in relativity, but unless you study it and try to comprehend it your not going to pass this subject" I was critical of it to begin with too.

High school science doesn't have the luxury of time to be proving things to students from fundamental principles, some of these topics have such large underlying complexity that they have entire tertiary level courses devoted to them.

At some point you have to believe the teacher.

[webmaster2089]

@SpiritualAtheist nobody, i repeat, nobody is telling anyone what to believe. you said it yourself "after being persuaded by evidence and argument," that's what science and science class are.

granted, good science classes don't address creationism, but simply because there's no good scientific reason to. they do encourage debate where it's reasonable, however, like in my earth space class we were presented with several theories on how the moon was created.

[dgeypscun]

@SpiritualAtheist It's as wrong as statements like this:

" 4 + 4 = 8. Or not. A single religious group says that that the answer is "blue". Which is mathamatically impossible but you should make up your own mind."

or this:

"The Earth revolves arounf the sun...Or Not. One religious group says that the entire universe revolves around the Earth which is physically inpossible but make up your own mind."

[SpiritualAtheist]

@dgeypscun So how do you suggest we control their minds?

[dgeypscun]

@SpiritualAtheist I don't. People are free to make up their own minds about whatever they wish however it is important that fact is presented as fact. When an educator opens the possibility that logically false alternatives are valid it defeats the purpose of education. I doubt that in Sunday schools and churches that evolution is presented as an "alternative" to creationism and that the children should "make up their own minds".

[jmcanoy1860]

@SpiritualAtheist

For the same reason that there is no opinion differences allowed in algebra. They are there to learn. Neither the teachers nor the students have the background in research or the necessary education to formulate a valid opinion on the matter. No one is forcing them to accept it. They are, however, expected to UNDERSTAND it (or at a bare minimum memorize it for tests). Obviously, neither the teacher nor the student can even manage the minimum.

[ShallowThoughts]

@SpiritualAtheist We have limited time to teach students. We owe it to them to teach what stands up to intense, rigourous scrutiny. If the students disbelieve, they then have the freedom to study further. Don't believe in plate tectonics? Study geology and (no sarcasm here) try and prove it wrong.

You would have the students taught voodoo, healing crystals, aliens, alchemy, divining rods, telepathy, whatever else, just because "it might be true and they should make up their own minds" ??

[gregrutz]

@ShallowThoughts But we need to teach about the global flood in schools. I want to know where all the water came from and where it went. We could fing out how the kangaroos got to Australia but didn't go anywhere else. And which fish died, the fresh water or the salt water fish. And how the Indians got to America. And why the Chinese didn't all die in a global flood.

[angryislander56]

It is appalling.One might hope that  the belligerent belief in the primacy of american *exceptionalism* (right up there with the Munroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny as American ideas designed to win friends and influence people) would force them to abandon this reactionary hockum in the interests of being the *best*.

[intellsoul]

Teachers are professionals and supposed to teach what is programed, personal views, religious behaviors or others can be added as contrasting or complementary ideas, just to open the minds of students and invite them to the critical thinking and their own research and investigation.

[wideosvatcher]

My American High School Biology teacher was great. When we got to evolution he said "some people dont agree with this but I do and its in our textbooks".

If its taken out of textbooks I imagine he'd go on strike. lol

[Maiyanna]

Religion trumps science in much of the U.S. We are paying dearly for this in my opinion. Teachers have to face parents and I have personally seen Christian parents complain about the teaching of evolution. To many of them, it's theory and shouldn't be taught.

The last gallop poll reported only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. Scary!

[alaskafido]

Wait! Can everyone hear that? It's the sound of falling IQs!

[FeelFreeToArgue]

Sad, very sad.

My kids go to a school where evolution is taugh unapologetically as our unqualified best guess as to what happened.

I wonder how, as a science teacher, you point out that there are other theories without immediately pointing out that there is no (as in zero) peer-reviewed science which serves as proof for anything but evolution.

I swear I can feel this country getting stupider all the time. I expect people to start randomly peeing themselves and drooling soon.

[AncientAtheist]

I would make a joke about history teachers instructing their classes that the Holy Bible is legitimate historical source material - but it's a little too close to reality to be funny.

"Why criticize peoples religious beliefs if they aren't HURTING anyone"?

[AGodlessProgressive]

@AncientAtheist Well you can use the bible to teach history, but you just can't only use the bible. You would have to incorporate other sources that validate what the bible says since so much of the stuff in there is made up.

[highway234]

i can't believe that a biology teacher who doesn't believe in evolution isn't immediately fired. what's next, math teachers who don't believe in geometry? literature teachers who don't believe in poetry?

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@highway234

Geography teachers who think that the Earth is unmoving at the centre of the solar system because we aren't flung off it's surface.

[tattooskin72]

I honestly don't remember this being such a huge debate back when I was in school. Although that was well over 20 years ago. I was taught evolution and there was no bullshit about creationism or intelligent design tossed in. I should also mention that I live in a rather religious and very conservative part of my state, so you'd think I would have had some exposure to that.

I do believe this a rather new phenomenon ... or at least this wave is.

[AncientAtheist]

@tattooskin72 "I honestly don't remember this being such a huge debate back when I was in school."

Right? Look how much things have changed in 10 years! ; )

[Meatbag211]

The US is a pretty strange country. I often advocate Blue states breaking off and joining Canada to form The United States of Reason and Education, and the red states can form The Empire of The Risen Jesus.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@Meatbag211

Hypothetically if that were to happen they'd probably wish in the future that Jesus had never risen again.

[Geertpieter]

Maybe it is time for the intelectuals/educated to come back to Europe?

If Amerika is going to continue this "war" against evolution there will be an effect...

[2bsirius]

@Geertpieter

I'm an American who lives in England, so no argument from me that that might make sense.

[CuriousMoth]

@Geertpieter What do you mean, 'come back to'? :P

[MobileThinker]

@Geertpieter why do some many Europeans make me wanna leave this country? lol...STOP giving me reasons to leave, i can't afford it! lol.

[glennjridge]

@Geertpieter cripes sake europe is practically muslim.and I predict in 15 -20 years will be rife with sharia law and horor killings if it isnt happening already. they should stay in america. besides looking at history, europe isnt the go to place for rational thought when it concerns human rights. not enough time has passed to pull that card.

[Geertpieter]

@glennjridge

No sorry m8, europe is not becomming a muslim country, the anti-islamic movements like pat condel and geert wilders etc. are more popular than ever.

There are laws in some country's to even wear a bourka or even a vail in public and most country's are even trying to prevent/preventing/reducing non-wetern imigration.

Does that sound like sharia law?

Have you even listened to any sources other than pat condel?

Maybe you should watch DLandonCole for a change. ;)

[wholethinker]

@Geertpieter Sources other than Pat Condel - wiki. Search "fertility rate" per country and you will learn that Europe is on the way of self-extinguishing, together with the whole Eastern civilization. It's about the statistics. Anti-islamic movement is a stupid thing. If one wants to survive, one should make children, more than 2 children per family, rather than expressing a disagreement with something.

Who is planning to get 3 children these days?

[Geertpieter]

@wholethinker

It is true that western/seculair people do not get as many children as eastern/islamic poeple, and also dumb people reproduce faster than smart people, but overall people are getting smarter every year.

Those thing's you mention are mainly determined by culture, muslims who immigrate to the west will get less children every generation, and we may assume the same will happen in the middel east when they improve the basic's like education/economy/health care/life expectancy...

[wholethinker]

@Geertpieter Let's consider these cases:

1. Muslims in Europe achieved the Fertility Rate (FR) less than non-muslims. Islamization didn't happen but the population disappeared.

2. FR of muslims is higher than non-muslims. We have islamization of Europe in this case because muslims don't give up their religion and don't assimilate.

3. FR of non-muslims is higher than muslims and >2.3. This is the only way the European civilization can survive.

Make children or wear burqa.

[Geertpieter]

@wholethinker

Nah they are adepting to our culture just like all the other nationalities, believes, cultures etc.

Holland has been a multi cultural societie for many century's, we have been dealing with this for so long, we will absorb them, and they will have their contribution to our culture, but eventually only the best of both will remain (of cours there will always be some exeptions, but it will not be a big problem in about 2 generations)

We do see the first sighns of integration

[Geertpieter]

@glennjridge

And no the problem we have in europe is not the islamisation but rather the hate towards muslims and the effects following from that, but at the moment the problems we have are being named (mostly by politicians)and there is a lot of media attention.

If you would like to see some of our national TV it would give you a more realistic vieuw of the Netherland, it has been subbed in english for you ;)

It's called: Muslim girls collide with Hans Teeuwen - Subtitled

[wholethinker]

@Geertpieter You are right, back to Europe, to listen to the word of Allah.

[Geertpieter]

@wholethinker

If someone wants to listen to allah/jesus they are free to do it as much as they want ;)

[ElasticGiraffe]

A&P is the primary focus of high school biology. Evolution and paleobiology are too advanced topics. Teachers without the proper education would likely have to explain some genetics and ecology to get there. That's why they usually spend only a day on mutation and natural selection. One problem I have is that many teachers, whether they accept the theory or not, can't explain it in a way that does not make it look completely ridiculous to students. So I think they should just stay away from it.

[gerontodon]

I'm from Britain, where there's virtually no skepticism amongst educated people about whether darwinian mechanisms can have done what they're said to... and I'm sick of that state of affairs, because I think there's a lot of doubt amongst experts, and a lot of word-bending to cover that up. So, I'm glad that Americans are being Americans, cos imo they're on the right track.

From your point of view, at least the teachers are making it attractive and rebellious to concur with strict neo-darwinism!

[gerontodon]

@ScottishAtheist

Look into the ideas of Stuarts Newman and Kaufmann, the italian co-author of What Darwin got Wrong (whose name I can't recall), the authors of The Plausibility of Life (ditto). I also agree with the criticisms of Behe, Meyer et al, but I know that won't count. I know that some would protest that secular humanists are arguing about mechanisms, not 'evolution', but that's the 'word-bending' I'm talking about. 'Evolution' is often used to mean the sufficiency of natural selection.

[gerontodon]

@ScottishAtheist

I also wish people on both sides could clarify whether they think that if neo-darwinism is wrong that implies teleology, and if so why? Personally, I think it *does*, but that shouldn't be taken as a given. Barbara Forrest, as an argument against ID, will say things like 'even if neo-darwinism isn't true evolution would still be true'- implying that physical mechanisms are the whole picture- and then will claim that neo-darwinism is not in opposition to religious belief.

[MobileThinker]

@gerontodon i really hope you are a poe...

[gerontodon]

@MobileThinker

No, I wish to avoid self-righteousness in myself or from others. I'm just also sick of the vagueness of the debate, and the often question-begging assumptions implicit in a lot of the arguments- from both sides of course. I realise that it's a tangled issue, and that the idea that darwinian processes are basically the explanation for biological diversity is intuitively plausible..

[MobileThinker]

@gerontodon the problem is, there really is not debate. there is no evidence for creation or 'intelligent design'. if evidence was present i would, at the very least, entertain the idea of a debate, but it doesn't exist. that is like saying there is a debate between a geocentric and a heliocentric solar system.

[gerontodon]

@MobileThinker

Late reply, but I couldn't let it lie. There definitely *is* a debate about whether Darwin's (real) mechanism can originate species, organs, organelles. Even Jerry Coyne says as much. Whether that's evidence for ID is another matter. People like Coyne, Scott etc will use the word 'evolution' interchangeably, to either mean specifically 'darwinian evolution', or a vaguer hypothesis of completely mindless process- for which there can't be any evidence.

[gerontodon]

@gerontodon

Or at least, no unambiguous, philosophically unarguable evidence-- any more than for ID.

[MobileThinker]

@gerontodon when i said that there was no debate, i meant between evolution and ID. i know that many biologists have come up with similar mechanism for evolution, but they all equate to change/time.

[MobileThinker]

@gerontodon oops...i meant they differ in the exact process that produces diverse beings. i mistakenly said they all revolve around the idea that change/time, while it is more or less environmental pressures that make the organism change, not just time by itself.

[gerontodon]

@MobileThinker

Yes that clarified it. Sexual selection and genetic drift are basically subbranches of evolution by natural selection-- the key is that environmental pressures cause change. I'm not talking about discussions about fine detail in that way. I mean that there is serious doubt amongst quite a few experts who are fairly indifferent to teleological explanations, that environmental pressures are really capable of doing much 'uphill work'.

[MobileThinker]

@gerontodon i would like to know exactly who these 'experts' are, because, according to the information that is easy to find, around 97% of biologists accept evolution as a whole, but the specifics are what they disagree on, like: how much sexual selection plays a part, compared to natural selection, or punctuated equilibrium theory.

[gerontodon]

@MobileThinker

Stuarts Kaufmann and Newman both believe that 'self-organisation' is more responsible for macro-evolution than environmental pressures. Massimo Piatelli-Pallmarini and Marc Kirchner. The latter might say that he's a Darwinian, but he and the co-author of The Plausibility of Life find it necessary to postulate constraints on mutations that specifically guide them towards functional form (no idea how they think it works).

[MobileThinker]

@gerontodon you know what, i think i misunderstood what you were saying. however, even if the plausibility of life changing through mutation is small, it means given enough time and every possible outcome will occur. finally, i do not think i have heard about 'self-organization', because, to be honest, it seem very weak if you think about it for a few minutes...that would not explain the diversity of life, only how life forms assemble themselves.

[gerontodon]

@MobileThinker

I agree that it's hard to imagine that self-organisation is an explanation of novel form- I think there's *something* to it, but being based on involved physical chem, it's above my head. It's true that given enough time every possible outcome will occur. However, I've read about calculations that there hasn't been enough anything like enough time in the universe. I'm largely taking their word for it of course, but I haven't heard any similar specific counter-claims.

[gerontodon]

@benthemiester

Whilst some or most of the people who wish to extend the modern synthesis probably think that mechanistic explanations are the only real explanations, and not just a particular *kind* of explanation, I think that canonical neo-darwinism made that philosophical idea seem much more tenable than more speculative ideas do. All ID proponents endorse natural selection, and some endorse common descent, so Scott and Coyne may not think that that's enough to make a position respectable.

[gerontodon]

@benthemiester

I was unsure of the difference between those 2 Massimos, but one I referred to co-authored What Darwin Got Wrong with Jerry Fodor. Interestingly, they reject neo-darwinism partly because it's *too* teleological, saying that Darwin got rid of God but substituted Mother Nature. Like the extended-synthesis crowd, they believe that the truth of how different life-forms arise is mechanistic, but unlike them, they think that it may be centuries before there's much inkling of them.

[gregrutz]

@gerontodon Darwin got stuff wrong, His Ideas are 150 years out of date. Evolution is accepted as fact. DNA proves it.

[TheAist]

i took biology every year from 7-12th grade. every time, we spent 1 day talking about evolution.