Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael.
I don't think religion should be taught in public schools, but I think that they should not frown upon discussing it and expel teachers who allow conversations of religion in their class rooms. It should be in a controlled environment, meaning if people get offended they should stop the discussion. However, this brings to the point of macro evolution, there's logic to disagree with macro evolution, so I don't think this should be taught either. Many of the charts etc. they use to prove their point have been found to be lies and/or folly, yet they still teach it as fact. I think they should teach observable science and not theoretical science.
|
I have not heard of these charts you speak of that were untruthful but supposing they are, the amount of evidence for the theory of evolution is immense. There are scientific research journals dedicated only to this and many other journals have numerous articles. If you then say it's not observable, you obviously haven't studied it or if you have, you're too biased or don't understand it. Let me give you an example of how it's observable: "super-bugs". Bacteria that evolve to become resistant to vaccinations. Why do you think there is such constant advances in vaccinations?
There are more and more genetic and molecular studies showing how certain genes can elecit various features and provides evidence for evolutionary theories, such as for the fin-fold theory. Here's some information on what I'm talking about
:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=LNnr...theory&f=false. After reading that, this article provides a brief summary of how molecular evidence supports it:
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs.../zeb.2009.0593.
What about the similarities between human embyros and embryos of other organisms (i.e. Chordata)? Or, what about the involvement of the apical ectodermal ridge (AER) in limb development and other genes? I guess we should scrap all that.
So let's see, you're against teaching evolution and religion. Are you willing to go all the way and say don't teach science at all? All science has an aspect of theory to it so if you claim not to teach theoretical science, then just what do you want to have taught?
What is your logic to disagree with macro-evolution?