James,
I would suppose we could give various views, especially since there are about 4 or 5 views on this topic.
Come to think about it.... why do they teach where humans come from in school?
I'd say toss the subject all together.
It wasn't a subject in school until 70 years after Darwin and the rise of the progressive secularists.... who by the way are STILL plopping crap in front of young brains.

Ditch the whole subject?
My 2 cents.

Blessings,
Mark

I am not rethinking my statement though not as well explained as what I posted should have been. The education system in general needs revamping. Funding schools through property taxes as in WI is an antiquated method. One issue I read people saying with schools is they do not teach what they believe. What is believed is not what I feel should be taught in public schools. Students should be taught to inquire and look for truth, think (which scares many), and problem solve. No I do not believe in many of the current items being taught in schools and do not feel my tax dollars should go to fund education in religious beliefs I do not share.
If you are unhappy with anything going on in schools you can take action, run for office, etc. Unfortunate more do not.

....cause I was thinking, I have an undergrad and graduate level degree in Biology and I can't think of a benefit to me of the unchallenged darwinism that was taught to me during the 70's and 80's.
None.
Except, believe what we teach and don't talk back.

I fudged a thesis project at the insistence of my grad university department to graduate that was involved for three years with transmutability of invertebrates so don't get me started on the purity of all science.

It's bogus.

1. Says who? Have you never heard of lies, dam lies, and statistics? Statistics are easily manipulated to support foregone conclusions.

2. The universe seems "designed" for comprehension? What other kind of universe could we exist in?

3. More detail and relevance is required for a response.

4. There's plenty of "transitional" evidence--plenty of fossil evidence and now DNA evidence of the heritage of modern species ("specie" is not singular of "species"; "specie" refers to precious metals) in ancient animals. Morphological evidence, like vestigial four limbs on whales. And so on. Including early humans.

5. Don't know what evidence you're relying on for your "appears to be" argument.

6. Haven't read that book.

7. Human uniqueness does not prove the existence of a creator. Only that we are the first known species to evolve advanced intelligence and self-awareness.

These and more arguments against evolution and natural selection are refuted by various SCIENCE-based websites.

Jim

I went to public school and both the big bang and creationism were covered in Biology... I believe it was 9th grade.

James, why would a Christian school teach Shintoism? I wouldn't expect a Shinto school to teach Christianity. You're just being silly. I would have no problem with a person of the Shinto faith using their tax allotment to send their kids to a Shinto based school if that's what they believe in.

Thanks BT, I agree entirely.
Teach kids how to think, not what to think.
The problem is that once someone gets into a position of power/authority (Dog catcher, Mayor, Teacher) they want to tell people what to do.
We need to remain vigilante regardless of our beliefs.

"I can't think of a benefit to me of the unchallenged darwinism that was taught to me during the 70's and 80's."

Could be that's because you don't work at developing vaccines or in other fields of biology, unless I miss my guess.

Jim

I don't want my tax dollars going to support the teaching of Christianity, Shintoism, or any other religion.

Religious instruction belongs in the home by believing parents. Or if you want to send your kids to a special, private school, you can pay the expenses yourself.

Jim

James, you are not current on this topic sir. I listed the topics submitted by Hugh Ross, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, John Lennox, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Peter Ward, Donald Brown-Lee, Sir John Eccles (Noble Prize), Daniel Robinson and a BOAT LOAD MORE folks! I'm up on this topic and these physicists, philosophers, (scientists all) are not dumb people. They are 21st century scientists questioning Darwin's 1850's thesis.

You don't think science has "evolved" in 170 years!!???

As an athiest or agnostic or whatever you choose to call yourself that doesn't surprise me. But I don't think that's what the SCOTUS is going to say in this case.

I think I'll say, as you and many others say on this site when questioned for your proof, do your own research.

There is more science being done now-a-days to prove the pre-approved philosophical conclusion....
rather then a quest for new knowledge.
You want that promotion?
You want to stay employed?
You want those grant dollars?
All right then....
here's what you'll prove.

Kinda like the jab mandates.
You want that promotion?
You want to stay employed?
You want that paycheck?
All right then....
Do as we say.

Same diff.

The whole of the scientific community has changed in my 60 years.

The dollars are too big and the status is too appealing, so the big guys tell the little guys what to seek, what to find, and why they will reach that conclusion.

Your scientists are a minority of actual scientists who accept evolution theory as mostly, if incompletely, accurate.

It's true I haven't read your evolution-denial books and papers. I doubt you have read many recent (subsequent to discovery of DNA proof) pro-evolution books. If you want to try one, there is Richard Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale. Yes, I know Dawkins is a well-known atheist, but he only touches on his theistic beliefs on two pages of the book, which you can easily skip if you like. The rest is strict science. And he refutes your seven points, though not necessarily in the same order.

Jim

BandB, you are the one who made the dubious claim that some public schools teach that men can have babies. You have the burden of coming forth with at least something to support that claim.

Jim

Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky and Stephen Hawking's are on my read list James. You don't know me and this subject.
I've studied it for 50 years.

I'm telling you, Richard Dawkins is the equivalent in my mind to a $$$$$$ hound.
No more. Darwin rehashed for the cash.
I won't follow his atheist faith.

I don't hold that the diversity of creation was a happenstance and I am not descended from a monkey.

If there is a creator, who created him?

Serious question.

Tax money should only support religious schools of the tax payer wants. I see no issue with that, otherwise they shouldn’t.

No matter whether you like it or not, your ancestry includes monkey-like species from about thirty million years ago and chimpanzee-like animals from eight million years ago. Chimps and humans have nearly identical DNA, btw.

When your Creator was busy creating the myriad of species (99 percent of which are now extinct), did he run out of ideas for the DNA to include?

Never mind the monkeys; the recent DNA evidence shows that our ancestors included sponges.

Jim

James is right, we share way more DNA with a chimp than a lion shares with your house cat.

I'm not arguing against the existence of a Creator. But if there is a Creator, the evidence shows that He used evolution as the method for creating the myriad of species that have existed on earth.

I don't understand why some Christians work so hard at denying evolution.

Jim