Mageth

I don't believe in a god, but I have to disagree with it being a matter of overturning science worldwide. Although people may like it that way, they focus on elementary and high school science classes which have almost no bearing on science actually being overturned. Now if they were attacking colleges and universities, that would be a different case.

And where do the students in colleges and universities come from? Elementary and high schools. Students should learn in grade school what they will need to know in higher education.

Wyz_sub10

It's not defending evolution, per se, it's defending knowledge and the scientific method.

If attacks on evolution are allowed based on nothing more than the fact that many theists find the idea repugnant, than we are compromising our integrity to placate childish fears and wishful thinking.

Too many foolish arguments have been made on letting ID or some such nonsense into classroom. We are compromising our children's education, and in doing so, are compromising our future welfare.

Anti-evolutionists are ignorant to the advances and benefits evolutionary theory contribute to medicine, genetic research and forensic science (among other disciplines).

If evolution is deemed "unacceptable" based on personal fears, what next? Nothing can be safe from attack because all scientific knowldege is acquired in exactly the same manner used to develop, investigate, accept and APPLY the concept of evolution.

Evolution defenders are not just defending evolution, they are defending human understanding and development.

l-bow

Notice zzang didn't respond to the claim that the reason evolutionists get so bothered is that creationists are demanding creationism be taught in science classes?

zzang

Sorry, but I have no idea how new species originate.

Wyz_sub10

That's okay. Most biologists do, though. If you're interested in learning how new species originate, you can find out easily enough.

That is, *if* you're interested.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

zzang

The only animals I think drugs should be tested on is humans. Testing them on other animals doesn't work as well as if we tested them on humans. Not that I am against testing on other animals, but such testing is very restricting since even the most similar animals react differently to certain chemicals than humans. But I would feel a little safer knowing that my medicine or deoderant was tested on a human rather than a chimp.

<strong>/QUOTE] It amazes and angers me that people can be anti-science while reaping its benefits. If they think that little of it, why don’t they go back to the troglodyte existence that spawned them. They should certainly get off their fucking computers.
</strong>[/QUOTE]

Uhm, thats a false dichotomy, just because you dont believe (or accept, same thing really) in a scientific theory doesn't mean that you are anti-science.

zzang

Ah but elected officials already pass laws against scientific research. Bush probably doesn't know anything about how stem cell research works or its possible benefits but you must understand that he isn't viewing it in terms of good science vs bad science. He sees it as killing a human, so all the science education would not stop someone from making that decision as long as they hold their outdated religios beliefs.

zzang

That's because I'm talking about the members and posts of this board.

zzang

Yeah, as environment changes those members of a population best suited to survive and reproduce do so and pass on their genes to the next generation and this continues until the population has changed so much that it can no longer(or does not) interbreed with the original group.

pz

Not quite. Drift will be a more important component in speciation than selection.