Florida adopts 'scientific theory of evolution'

Dave!

rigormortis wrote: »

Evolutionary theory is not a science, if anything it is a religion.

As for scientists improving my life in any way, not yet.

.

Mr. CooL ICE

rigormortis wrote:

As for scientists improving my life in any way, not yet.

^^ example here too.



Ever take any medication when you were sick? Ever notice how cars today don't emit half the fumes they did 50 years ago? Yeah sure, scientists never did anything for you :rolleyes:

rigormortis

DaveMcG wrote: »

.

Look, I'm not even getting into this. I am only back today after a week long "holiday". Later.

Red Hand

Was he in the Life of Brian?:) (What have they ever done for us...!?)

rigormortis

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Was he in the Life of Brian?:) (What have they ever done for us...!?)

Look at his video, Reality Check. Its on google video.

Slutmonkey57b

Troll wrote: »

As for scientists improving my life in any way, not yet.

Not to respond to the troll, but this is a favourite argument of mine:

I think anyone who objects so vehemently to science, whether it be evolution, or animal testing, or genetics, should be refused access to the fruits of science that modern society enjoys. What does that mean?

That means no access to medicines that came about as a result of "unethical" animal or human research - ie all of them. No insulin for diabetics. No cancer drugs. No allergy medication. No (my favourite) bypass machines for Jehova's witnesses who refuse blood transplants.
No access to any form of technology - electronic, steam driven, oil driven, metallurgy, structural engineering.
No access to any form of transport at any time other than the (bare) foot and pack animals.

People with no respect for science should be prepared to live without it methinks.

Dave!

Anyways................

Galvasean

Suddenly I'm reminded of Moe in the angel episode of the Simpsons. "What has science ever done for us?" Shortly after when he's in trouble, "I hope medical science can help me."
Lets be honest if it werent for scientists our quality of life would be atrocious. Heck, most of us probably wouldn't be alive today.

rigormortis

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

People with no respect for science should be prepared to live without it methinks.

I would not let a doctor within a mile of me. As for you other suggestions, I would quite happily live such an existance. No CCTV, RFID, vaccinations, GM food, government.

Science has humanity enslaved at the present time, if you cannot see that, well then I will not attempt to convince you otherwise.

Red Hand

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Not to respond to the troll, but this is a favourite argument of mine:

I think anyone who objects so vehemently to science, whether it be evolution, or animal testing, or genetics, should be refused access to the fruits of science that modern society enjoys. What does that mean?

That means no access to medicines that came about as a result of "unethical" animal or human research - ie all of them. No insulin for diabetics. No cancer drugs. No allergy medication. No (my favourite) bypass machines for Jehova's witnesses who refuse blood transplants.
No access to any form of technology - electronic, steam driven, oil driven, metallurgy, structural engineering.
No access to any form of transport at any time other than the (bare) foot and pack animals.

People with no respect for science should be prepared to live without it methinks.

Mmmmmm...but what if those people were conceived with the help of fertility treatments?:)

Mr. CooL ICE

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Mmmmmm...but what if those people were conceived with the help of fertility treatments?:)

Have their bodies donated to science

Red Hand

LordChessington wrote: »

Have their bodies donated to science

Lol! Get them at the beginning and at the end...

Galvasean

I'd rather be donated to the poor.
Think about it.

Mr. CooL ICE

Okay then, donate to Battersea dogs home. The little scamps always need food

Galvasean

Ah, circle of life.

Mr. CooL ICE

Leaning slightly more on-topic:

What is actually on the irish curriculum regarding evolution? From what I remember, I usually read about evolution in nature books (ahh, those were the days) but remember getting the creationism crap spouted at me from visiting priests and brothers

AlmightyCushion

I don't know about primary school but in secondary school we definitely did it.

Galvasean

AFAIK the only obligation in our schools to teach evolution is in Leaving Cert biology, not that you need to answer/study that question. In any ways what you get taught there is horribly out of date.

randylonghorn

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

If God made us...Well then he didn't do a good job!

Actually, the rumour is she got distracted before she finished ...

~Rebel~

rigormortis wrote: »

I would not let a doctor within a mile of me.

Would you let a doctor near your child if it would save their life?

And dont come back at me with 'how do you know it would save their life", its quite clear that doctors DO help in a huge huge amount of cases and DO save lives that otherwise would be lost. (On a far tamer scale of things) I myself last year tried a bit of homeopathy with a flu. It developed into bronchitis. I went to the doctor and 3 days later i was better.


As for the OP, i think its completely unfair to say something like "that proves half of em are braindead". If thats what you're taught and thats the belief you grow up surrounded by, thats what you know. If that was the curriculum here, its what we'd believe too. It does look silly from the higher ups, but at the same time, its always been their way, so just because we've come on in the past 20years (and it is only that long) and gotten into a far more modernised way of thinking, rather then accepting the catholic doctrine that was beaten into our parents and grandparents in school, doesn't IMO give us the right to just call half a nation braindead.

2Scoops

seraphimvc wrote: »

As a man of science ,my conclusion to this topic is simply :just a matter of believe or not.

My last sentence of EVERY assignment about evolution....always got me at least 80% i am happy:)

Maybe you would have got 100% if you had have left that bit out!

bleg

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Not to respond to the troll, but this is a favourite argument of mine:

I think anyone who objects so vehemently to science, whether it be evolution, or animal testing, or genetics, should be refused access to the fruits of science that modern society enjoys. What does that mean?

That means no access to medicines that came about as a result of "unethical" animal or human research - ie all of them. No insulin for diabetics. No cancer drugs. No allergy medication. No (my favourite) bypass machines for Jehova's witnesses who refuse blood transplants.


People with no respect for science should be prepared to live without it methinks.

]



thank **** we have the Hippocratic oath

2Scoops

rigormortis wrote: »

I would not let a doctor within a mile of me. As for you other suggestions, I would quite happily live such an existance. No CCTV, RFID, vaccinations, GM food, government.

Science has humanity enslaved at the present time, if you cannot see that, well then I will not attempt to convince you otherwise.

The NWO is reading your internet posts - I hope you're hiding your IP address! :eek:

Why not live on a desert island or something? - no CCTV, RFID, vaccinations, GM food or government! Brilliant!

The_Minister

LordChessington wrote: »

but remember getting the creationism crap spouted at me from visiting priests and brothers

I'm going to call SHENANIGANS!!!!! on you for that one.
The Catholic Church accepts evolution as not contradicting the Bible. John Paul II even said that "Adam and Eve may not have been human" or something to that effect.
It is Prodestants that don't accept evolution.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

3. Before offering a few more specific reflections on the theme of the origin of life and evolution, I would remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made some pronouncements on these matters, within her own proper sphere of competence. I will cite two such interventions here.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.

4. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

What is the significance of a theory such as this one? To open this question is to enter into the field of epistemology. A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.

Moreover, the elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obedient to the need for consistency with the observed data, must also involve importing some ideas from the philosophy of nature.

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

metaoblivia

~Rebel~ wrote: »

As for the OP, i think its completely unfair to say something like "that proves half of em are braindead". If thats what you're taught and thats the belief you grow up surrounded by, thats what you know. If that was the curriculum here, its what we'd believe too. It does look silly from the higher ups, but at the same time, its always been their way, so just because we've come on in the past 20years (and it is only that long) and gotten into a far more modernised way of thinking, rather then accepting the catholic doctrine that was beaten into our parents and grandparents in school, doesn't IMO give us the right to just call half a nation braindead.

First of all, thank you for standing up for the Americans who are not braindead. And secondly, they do teach the theory of evolution in the state of Florida. And, at least in my science classes, it was taught as pretty much fact with just a few missing links yet to be discovered.
It just wasn't specifically stated in the state's written standards as a requirement. In other words, a state standard may read, "All students must be able to identify national holidays and their significance." It doesn't specifically say that they have to know the 4th of July, President's Day or Constitution day... but of course they're going to learn those holidays. This is the same thing. We had a state standard requiring students to learn the various scientific theories regarding human life and development over the centuries, and it's a given that the theory of evolution was one.
Now they've altered it to specifically include the scientific theory of evolution. All this means is that when it comes time for state testing, teachers have to prepare their students to answer questions on the theory of evolution, and no one can say they weren't warned because it was specifically stated in the standard.