Symposium | Why Does the Debate Matter?

On May 11th, 2012 Stanford's Constitutional Law Center, along with the Center for Law and the Biosciences and the National Center for Science and Education (NCSE) hosted the symposium, "Science and Religion in the Classroom: Edwards v. Aguillard at 25."
Nathan Chapman (Stanford) moderated the panel, "Why Does the Debate Matter?" featuring Michael McConnell (Stanford), Hank Greely (Stanford), Ronald Numbers (Wisconsin), Michael Ruse (Florida State) and
Eugenie Scott (NCSE).

• Category

  Education

[SeedlingNL]

We don't need the complete puzzle though. Just enough to get a decent understanding, and once we got that, we expand on it.

Creationists don't care about understanding. If it doesn't follow their dogma, it's wrong. No matter how patently absurb their dogmatic beliefs are.

You always will win an argument with one once your present your case. But you cannot reason with them. No matter how many times you debunk their junk, they refuse to listen to reason. Blinded by faith, the cancer of mankind

[AjnaKotobide]

No, it would make it [examining ID] a total waste of limited student and teacher time, which is an expensive resource. We need to provide these kids an education, and that means no wasting time on fairy stories that don't need a teacher resource or classroom time.

[Samuel Phillippi]

"Eat *feces, 20 trillion flies can't be wrong!" -Bill Maher (*edited so not to be dismissed due to "language")

[Mandy O]

Ahh kk I see your point.

[Guitcad1]

You can substitute "Macbeth" for "The Merchant of Venice" but what are you going to substitute for the scientific theory that is at the very foundation of biology? Creationism is utterly irreconcilable with not just evolution and biology, but with the most basic principles of science: criticle thinking, the scientific method, the willingness to change what you think when the evidence shows it to be wrong. To compromise on this is to undermine the very way we go about doing all of science.

[semitope]

so its a palaeontological prediction. Good job

[semitope]

still waiting on the link to biological evolution

[semitope]

Still waiting for you actually linking this to become a prediction of evolution. I don't need sources, I found information on it. It's not that important in oil exploration so it wasn't going to come up as easily as I expected. How do you predict where to find oil based on natural selection and random mutations?

[semitope]

If you want people to believe your crap, you might as well source it. I see nothing to support your claim even though your claim really isn't even based on evolution. I feel trolled right now. I think you are one of those people who conflate every single possible thing that could be associated with acceptance of evolution to being an actual prediction or evidence or whatever. Fossils simply existing is not equal to evolution for example

[semitope]

why are you guys always trying to hide behind other people's scientific ideas? They go through all that crap looking for oil and you want to claim the biological theory of evolution predicts that for them? It is biology, physics and chemistry and these would be the same regardless of whether you accept evolution or not. They know conditions required for hydrocarbon fuel formation, they know where it is often found etc. if you still insist, how about supporting your claim with something?