Creationism in Schools?

[Hera Ledro]

WRONG.

A theory never becomes a law. Gravity is still a theory. A theory is the explanation of how the law works. A law is a simple explanation of what happens, while a theory is an explanation of why it happens. Even when we have a law, that law is not proven. Nothing is ever proven in science.

You are simply ignorant as to how these terms are used in scientific literature.

Proof only exists in math.


I can't go any further in my deconstruction of this post until you understand why you're wrong.

You'll have to show my why I'm wrong, first. Your definitions and logic leave much to be desired. There are several coinciding definitions for the word theory here (I would use my university access to the OED, except for some reason the server is down). And according to the majority of articles here and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, our example of gravity is indeed a law. Wikipedia's credibility notwithstanding, I think the myriad articles presented by the many journals accessible from the above link are more than convincing enough for me.

So if your arguments can refute hundreds or thousands of scientific articles, please show me how. You'll have to spell it out slowly and mathematically if you want to give me 'proof' of how I'm wrong.

I'd respond to the entire post, but I think this is where most of our disagreement lies. Validity and credibility in relation to an objective reality (I'm still not 100% sure if you think that reality is objective or subjective, but I'm going to assume you think there's an objective reality that we can only perceive subjectively, tell me if I'm wrong) are not subjective to religion: the religion is either wrong or right in relation to reality, period.

Yes, that is what I mean, but I still disagree with your final statement. How can you prove that it is wrong if all you have are subjective views on what we admit to be an objective entity? I follow in the footsteps of Kant, or more appropriately Hick, when I say that no single person or group of people can fully grasp the nature of the world, because we all see it subjectively. By extension we cannot 'prove' that someone else's world view is wrong because we have no evidence to support the claim that our world view is right. We may believe it is right, or have faith that our logic is immaculate in its systems, but we cannot prove it without an objective view of the world. Basically, I am proposing that the scientific world view is no more credible than the religious world view, for just as religion cannot prove science is wrong through scientific means, neither can science prove religion false through religious means. It is credible in its own world view, certainly, but not through others. This is directly synonymous (or analogous) to the Creation-Evolution debate.

On a side note, I find it interesting that despite my very vehement world view of atheism, I am defending religion against other people. I guess we can change, eh Angelus xD

This is a logical fallacy called ad hominem (not to mention it's a direct insult), as you are trying to imply that he hasn't been to school and that makes him inferior. I doubt you actually know if he's been to school or not, and either way, his lack of a formal education (if that was the case) would not make him wrong about anything he has said.

It's especially ironic because der Astronom is, like me, an educated university graduate (you have graduated, right Angelus?).

 

[Emyunoxious]

You'll have to show my why I'm wrong, first. Your definitions and logic leave much to be desired. There are several coinciding definitions for the word theory here (I would use my university access to the OED, except for some reason the server is down). And according to the majority of articles here and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, our example of gravity is indeed a law. Wikipedia's credibility notwithstanding, I think the myriad articles presented by the many journals accessible from the above link are more than convincing enough for me.

Allow me to demonstrate how fucking wrong you are. I will do this using the same source you did.

From wikipedia:

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

Yes, we agree. There is a law of gravity.

In modern language, this law is:


NEWTON'S LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION
Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Makes sense. I'm sure we agree at this point.

But that is the law. That sentence I provided, along with an equation, is the entire law. It's how gravity functions.

Notice it doesn't explain anything. There's no explanation about how the processes work. It doesn't say why gravity works the way it does, it just tells you that gravity does this.

But WHY.

That explanation about why it works is a ~*~*~*~THEORY*~*~*.

There have been several theories on how gravity works, including Newton's original one, but our current theory on how gravity works is Einstein's theory of general relativity.

So, yes, there is a theory of gravity (general relativity) as well as a law of universal gravitation.

HOWEVER.

The THEORY never became a LAW.

The LAW is a component of the THEORY.

My definitions leave nothing to be desired, you simply don't understand them.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Alright, the amendments are what is necessary, implemented by the majority. Same thing, really. They are not right if they disallow Gnosticism to be taught in school. Obviously, if Gnosticism goes against science, than there is a problem with science, as Gnosticism does not specifically argue against science.
Taught, study> Teacher, student.
Terrible semantics that I would rather not have to break down anymore.

On another thing, I came across someone saying 'proof is only found in math'. Well, dream on, because I could come up with a workable equation that says the sky is green.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Yes, that is what I mean, but I still disagree with your final statement. How can you prove that it is wrong if all you have are subjective views on what we admit to be an objective entity? I follow in the footsteps of Kant, or more appropriately Hick, when I say that no single person or group of people can fully grasp the nature of the world, because we all see it subjectively. By extension we cannot 'prove' that someone else's world view is wrong because we have no evidence to support the claim that our world view is right. We may believe it is right, or have faith that our logic is immaculate in its systems, but we cannot prove it without an objective view of the world. Basically, I am proposing that the scientific world view is no more credible than the religious world view, for just as religion cannot prove science is wrong through scientific means, neither can science prove religion false through religious means. It is credible in its own world view, certainly, but not through others. This is directly synonymous (or analogous) to the Creation-Evolution debate.

I feel religion shows itself pretty false via internal inconsistency. You don't need science for that.

But, regardless of our ability to only see the world subjectively, if reality is objective, then there is only one actual situation, and the others are not the case. I'm not saying that we have a way to objectively view that reality and prove which one is correct, but I am saying that we have a reliable way to look at the world, which provides consistent results, and several other ways which provide internally conflicting or inconsistent results. I know the reliable one isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got by a mile.

On a side note, I find it interesting that despite my very vehement world view of atheism, I am defending religion against other people. I guess we can change, eh Angelus xD

It needs all the help it can get most days.

It's especially ironic because der Astronom is, like me, an educated university graduate (you have graduated, right Angelus?).

That makes the whole thing downright hilarious.

Alright, the amendments are what is necessary, implemented by the majority. Same thing, really. They are not right if they disallow Gnosticism to be taught in school.

Teaching about it, or teaching it? One of those is education, the other religious indoctrination (which means schools would be religious institutions, which is certainly not right).

Obviously, if Gnosticism goes against science, than there is a problem with science, as Gnosticism does not specifically argue against science.

Or there's a problem with Gnosticism, since science corresponds with reality and Gnosticism doesn't necessarily do that.

Taught, study> Teacher, student.
Terrible semantics that I would rather not have to break down anymore.

What are you getting at here? I'm not sure what this is about.

On another thing, I came across someone saying 'proof is only found in math'. Well, dream on, because I could come up with a workable equation that says the sky is green.

And it would be riddled with logical fallacies, I'm sure. But why don't you go ahead and put up that equation, so we can evaluate it?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I said a long time ago that it should be taught as philosophy, as that is what Gnosticism is. So trying to be technical on the subject worries me none, especially when my take on this thread stands pretty well.

Science does nothing to show the origins of reality, it only has theories on how it has transformed through it's singularity.
I feel that Gnosticism in schools will help students be able to compare and contrast the intrigues of both it and science.
Seems pretty solid to me, as well for anyone else who has a construct of reason and unbiased thought.

 

[Jquestionmark]

I said a long time ago that it should be taught as philosophy, as that is what Gnosticism is. So trying to be technical on the subject worries me none, especially when my take on this thread stands pretty well.

Science does nothing to show the origins of reality, it only has theories on how it has transformed through it's singularity.
I feel that Gnosticism in schools will help students be able to compare and contrast the intrigues of both it and science.
Seems pretty solid to me, as well for anyone else who has a construct of reason and unbiased thought.

I fail to see how Gnosticism is philosophy and not religion. If it makes a claim on the origin of the universe that is not evidence supported, it is myth/religion, and not philosophy or science. Philosophy looks at the nature of reality (and metaphysical reality, and what have you), not where it came from.

Why would science need to show the origins of reality for the rest of it to be valid?

And I still want to see that green sky equation. I'm super curious about that one.

 

[der Astronom]

Yes, that is what I mean, but I still disagree with your final statement. How can you prove that it is wrong if all you have are subjective views on what we admit to be an objective entity? I follow in the footsteps of Kant, or more appropriately Hick, when I say that no single person or group of people can fully grasp the nature of the world, because we all see it subjectively. By extension we cannot 'prove' that someone else's world view is wrong because we have no evidence to support the claim that our world view is right. We may believe it is right, or have faith that our logic is immaculate in its systems, but we cannot prove it without an objective view of the world. Basically, I am proposing that the scientific world view is no more credible than the religious world view, for just as religion cannot prove science is wrong through scientific means, neither can science prove religion false through religious means. It is credible in its own world view, certainly, but not through others. This is directly synonymous (or analogous) to the Creation-Evolution debate.

Then we end up with this problem where either nothing is worth teaching because we can't prove anything with absolute certainty (I don't know about math though; proof is actually applicable when it comes to math), or some things are worth teaching because the methods behind them result in useful conclusions that can be applied in real life (eg, science leads to technology, which leads to higher living standards economically, etc.). At least useful in the context of society and life as we know it. Religion, on the other hand, offers no such usefulness; the reason for church and state separation is because teaching someone's personal beliefs offers nothing that is necessarily useful to others. No one can deny that a vaccine helps prevent certain diseases (and we know to what degree they work), but that a god might comfort some people from the unknown is not a universal comfort felt by everyone. I suppose you don't seem content with the idea of schools teaching knowledge that isn't simply proven (and science doesn't operate that way), in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

On a side note, I find it interesting that despite my very vehement world view of atheism, I am defending religion against other people. I guess we can change, eh Angelus xD

I've noticed; a member from ACF who used to be strongly religious and republican is now communist and atheist. Interesting, isn't it?

It's especially ironic because der Astronom is, like me, an educated university graduate (you have graduated, right Angelus?).

Yes actually, I have. And I'm going on to study computing sciences because I think my math background can handle it. Actually, I think anything is possible with math.

But personally, I would find it ironic that a person with no formal education could best someone in debate, since most people expect the well educated people to win. It's kind of like how Christopher Hitchens owns his debate opponents while being as drunk as a mule; it's embarrassing to admit you lost to someone who was drunk.

 

[Rydrum2112]

I am glad people are just ignoring posts to try new arguments...

Rydrum2112 This is a post count section. Please put more effort than this into the post. Thanks.

 

[Jquestionmark]

I am glad people are just ignoring posts to try new arguments...

If it helps, I read your post. I was actually so pleased with the quote you had in it that I printed it out so I could have a hard copy on me. I never knew that, and I'm sad that I didn't. Thank you so much for putting it up.

If you're referring to the person I think you are, don't be mad, it happens on here a lot. The pace of conversation also seems to be insane, so it's hard to get people to actually respond to the questions/requests a lot of the time.

Don't be mad, though. It happens. Just keep on keeping on and eventually you might get some answers (or not, sorry dude).

 

[Rydrum2112]

If it helps, I read your post. I was actually so pleased with the quote you had in it that I printed it out so I could have a hard copy on me. I never knew that, and I'm sad that I didn't. Thank you so much for putting it up.

If you're referring to the person I think you are, don't be mad, it happens on here a lot. The pace of conversation also seems to be insane, so it's hard to get people to actually respond to the questions/requests a lot of the time.

Don't be mad, though. It happens. Just keep on keeping on and eventually you might get some answers (or not, sorry dude).

Sorry if you thought that was directed at you it wasn't. Yeah I tried one other time here about religion, and that was out of control. I thought this thread might stick to the idea of creationism in classroom but it jumped to religion also.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I fail to see how Gnosticism is philosophy and not religion. If it makes a claim on the origin of the universe that is not evidence supported, it is myth/religion, and not philosophy or science. Philosophy looks at the nature of reality (and metaphysical reality, and what have you), not where it came from.

Why would science need to show the origins of reality for the rest of it to be valid?

And I still want to see that green sky equation. I'm super curious about that one.

Gnosticism is not a religion, it is philosophy.

Science does not need to know the origins of reality for it to be valid. How does this mean Gnosticism should not be taught? Because it brings some of science down to size?

The green sky equation.. I was implying this: there are beautiful mathematics behind just about any theory of physics, and yet they can't all be right.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Alright, the amendments are what is necessary, implemented by the majority. Same thing, really.

Yes, but they're not for the majority. You have a point that the majority rules, but that doesn't mean they should rule with their heel on the neck of someone else.

if Gnosticism goes against science, than there is a problem with science, as Gnosticism does not specifically argue against science.

Why couldn't there be a problem with Gnosticism? And frankly, science doesn't 'go against' anything. It is the culmination of our efforts to understand the natural world rationally and with evidence. I would argue that if something contradicts it, then the problem is with the thing contradicting it.

On another thing, I came across someone saying 'proof is only found in math'. Well, dream on, because I could come up with a workable equation that says the sky is green.

That is because logic is math. However, just because you can make a mathematically valid and logical proof does not mean that your conclusion is true. Validity has nothing to do with truth values.

Also, you should do that. I don't think you can actually form a logical proof. At all. Consider it a challenge.

Sum1 you are nuts if you think america was founded on christian beliefs- just check the link I already provided.

It took me a while to catch up with the threads, but this made my day. I learned something, and the information pleases me greatly.

Science does nothing to show the origins of reality, it only has theories on how it has transformed through it's singularity.

Are you talking about reality in general, or this universe? Because we know enough about the origin of the universe that it no longer requires a god(s) to have begun it. It is inevitable for it to have formed on its own.

This is a perfect exemplification of your reasoning. You need to back the f*ck off, bro. I'm tired of the bullshit.

Why are you so mad just because people are disagreeing with you? If you find their explanations and refutations 'bullshit', then refute them!

I don't actually see the point of religious education in any form in schools. For me, it constitutes a waste of a serious amount of time that could be utilised in teaching children a more worthwhile subject, based in absolute fact, such as mathematics or one of the sciences.

As much as I border on being an anti-theist, I don't really agree with this. Religion has its place in schools (being presented as religion and nothing more). And frankly, while I think a greater understanding of science and math is important, most of it won't affect your daily life. I've had to take way more math than I will ever use as a graphic designer.

Despite my views on it, understanding of religions is important. If the actual writings of religions and their history is taught (and accurately), I think it would have a very positive impact. A lot of hatred stems from ignorance. A greater understanding of things like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, will hopefully foster some respect for other religions. Granted, I even have trouble having respect for some religious beliefs after learning more about them, and I'm rather well informed, so who knows.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Gnosticism is not a religion, it is philosophy.

Don't say things, show them. You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. I say, if it proposes how reality formed, it contains a religious myth and is therefor a religion. You have to show that to not be the case, and not just claim "not a religion, it is philosophy" with no supporting argument. I can also make unsupported claims:

The Church was founded by evil reptile aliens.

Emyunoxious is the most moral person on these boards.

Science does not need to know the origins of reality for it to be valid. How does this mean Gnosticism should not be taught? Because it brings some of science down to size?

Your questions contain no support for the idea that gnosticism "brings some of science down to size." I was just trying to remind you that science doesn't have to answer everything to be correct about the things it does answer (since it's been a point of trouble in the past).

Either way, religions are okay to teach about in school, but it's not okay to teach them.

The green sky equation.. I was implying this: there are beautiful mathematics behind just about any theory of physics, and yet they can't all be right.

First, if your premises for the logical equation are false, then the equation can be valid, but the conclusion is still false. There's a difference between validity and truth.

And how do you know that the mathematical equations behind physics theories are incorrect? Do you have a reason we should think some of them are incorrect?

 

[Emyunoxious]

The Church was founded by evil reptile aliens.

Emyunoxious is the most moral person on these boards.

J, if you could clarify your claim in your last post, I would appreciate it a lot. As it's written, it sounds very much like you're saying these things are not the case, when we know they are.

 

[der Astronom]

J, if you could clarify your claim in your last post, I would appreciate it a lot. As it's written, it sounds very much like you're saying these things are not the case, when we know they are.

Well, I wouldn't say it's true, but that doesn't mean you're not necessarily moral. It just means you're not the most moral; maybe we all are equally as moral on this side of religion.

 

[DKnight]

No true scotsman fallacy as a mofo. They wouldn't, because they'd be wrong. We know how the processes of evolution work. We might not know every species that has ever existed.

But we also don't know every atom that has ever existed, and this is no problem for atomic theory.

Samesies for evolution.



There was once a time when chemistry was not allowed to be taught in a class room [and alchemy was], and now it is quite the opposite. I believe that it should at least be presented in general science classed, and allowed to be taught in a class that people can choose to register for.

See, when we have real science that takes the place of a myth, we don't do a disservice to students by teaching both sides: The right one and the wrong one.

We just teach the right one.

We teach evolution and chemistry, not creationism and alchemy.

Yes there are gaps in fossil record according to anthropologists i have talked to. one of the anthropologists was one that went out into the field to find and study this sort of thing.
but that was not the point of my post. I was simply presenting an example of how things are.
and i would have to disagree that the reason why evolution and chemistry are being taught. it is not because they are the "right" ones. they are being taught because they are the ones that are currently being studied. just like how other concepts were being learned because they were the subjects being studied at that time. Creationism is being studied from a scientific perspective and thus can find a place in classroom discussion.

And because of how much education in all subjects has changed over time. It is probably safe to say that a completely different set of subjects will be added to on or even replace the ones we have today.

 

[Emyunoxious]

Yes there are gaps in fossil record according to anthropologists i have talked to. one of the anthropologists was one that went out into the field to find and study this sort of thing.

As wet as your first-hand experience makes me, this has nothing to do with what I said. I said we understand the process of evolution, but then right after, I say we don't know every species that ever existed.

See, that's not a problem for the Theory of Evolution.

The fact that we don't know every chemical compound that exists in nature does not mean chemistry is wrong, nor does the fact that we don't know every species ever mean that biology is wrong.

Please tell me that's not the point of your post.

but that was not the point of my post. I was simply presenting an example of how things are.

Thank the maker. We're saved!

and i would have to disagree that the reason why evolution and chemistry are being taught. it is not because they are the "right" ones. they are being taught because they are the ones that are currently being studied.

Wait.

You mean, they're being studied, because they're being studied?

That don't make a lick of sense, buddy.

It's not like we're still teaching math because we're still discovering things about math. We're teaching math because it's right, and because teaching falsehoods would be irresponsible.

Biology and chemistry are right, so we teach them.

just like how other concepts were being learned because they were the subjects being studied at that time.

This... doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what to say about this, it just defies understanding. You mean that once we understand something well enough, we don't teach it anymore?

First of all, what would be the point of learning things if we just ignored them afterwards?

Second, find me one example of us understanding something, so we stop teaching it.

Creationism is being studied from a scientific perspective and thus can find a place in classroom discussion.

Creationism isn't being studied from a scientific perspective.

Creationism can't be studied from a scientific perspective.

Creationism is not science, it is a myth.

Creationism makes no predictions about the world. Creationism offers no explanations for events or observations that cannot already be explained sufficiently without it. Creationism offers no testable claims, and therefore no claims can be verified.

Creationism is magic, and has place with the rest of the tricks of religion, in a church, and out of the halls of academia.

And because of how much education in all subjects has changed over time. It is probably safe to say that a completely different set of subjects will be added to on or even replace the ones we have today.

Let me ask you something that seems obvious to me.

If we completely changed from teaching math, what would take its place? It seems like you think that primitive people, ourselves included, are just on a roll of getting absolutely everything wrong, and that our mistakes have no value in themselves.

And that's weird. That's a weird thing to say. We progress, we don't just make shit up out of nothing. Well, science doesn't, at least.

It is not safe to say that we'll be teaching a completely different set of subjects in a few years, because that has no basis in history, or reality as we know it.

 

[Rydrum2112]

Yes there are gaps in fossil record according to anthropologists i have talked to. one of the anthropologists was one that went out into the field to find and study this sort of thing.
but that was not the point of my post.

There are no gaps in the fossil record. Try reading a book on the topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624

By the way you do realize anthropologists are NOT the folk who specialize in the study of fossils right? They study cultures not fossils.

You should be asking a paleontologist.

 

[DKnight]

Emyunoxious
I was saying the subjects are being discussed because they are being studied. teaching and discussing something are different from studying.
and yes creationism is being studied as a science. it is presented as "Intelligent design". the reason most people dont know this is that the people doing this are being silenced by close minded people. The mention of the possibility of the subject in some universities could get a professor fired.
And i wasnt sayin that all subjects will be replaced someday. i was saying that they change. they are modified and added onto, and in some cases are given different names.


@ Rydrum2112
There are anthropologist that study bones and the process of evolution. its called physical anthropology. it studies the the evolutionary process of human beings and close related species. I am not denying evolution. I understand the theories that fill in those gaps. they make sense.

 

[Emyunoxious]

Emyunoxious
I was saying the subjects are being discussed because they are being studied. teaching and discussing something are different from studying.

I don't know of any class where the entire curriculum is discussion based, and the students come up with their own conclusions. Except in a class where the answers really don't matter, that would be exceedingly irresponsible, and isn't representative of classrooms in any level of academia. I would also like to mention that you didn't say discussing except at the very end of your post, in a completely different context.

and yes creationism is being studied as a science. it is presented as "Intelligent design". the reason most people dont know this is that the people doing this are being silenced by close minded people.

...


They're teaching intelligent design?

Where? Because that's unconstitutional, due to this little landmark court case.

Not a big deal, but, you might have heard of it, it was called...

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION.


Jeez, you people gotta learn your history right.

But seriously, there are so many court decisions that have stated in no uncertain terms that teaching Creationism or "Intelligent Design" in a science classroom is unconstitutional, that I will list all of them right now.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and secular instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This was especially important, because this trial established something called the Lemon test, which lists the requirements for legislation regarding religion. It is as follows:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Daniel v. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution.

Hendren et al. v. Campbell et al. was a 1977 ruling by an Indiana state superior court that the young-earth creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, published by the Creation Research Society and promoted through the Institute for Creation Research, could not be used in Indiana public schools. The ruling declared: "The question is whether a text obviously designed to present only the view of Biblical Creationism in a favorable light is constitutionally acceptable in the public schools of Indiana. Two hundred years of constitutional government demand that the answer be no."

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education was a 1981 legal case in Arkansas.
A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by various parents, religious groups and organizations, biologists, and others who argued that the Arkansas state law known as the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590), which mandated the teaching of "creation science" in Arkansas public schools, was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Judge William Overton handed down a decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that creation science is religion and is simply not science. The ruling was not binding on schools outside the Eastern District of Arkansas but had considerable influence on subsequent rulings on the teaching of creationism.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

And finally, the most arousing of all these court trials, and most relevant to your claims, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design was to be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, with Of Pandas and People to be used as a reference book. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision has sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

As we have found, again and again, Intelligent Design is Creationism, and Creationism is not science.

How exactly are they teaching this, again?

The mention of the possibility of the subject in some universities could get a professor fired.

"Hey, fellow professors! You know what I was thinking? Let's go into our science classes today, and not only break laws, but teach religion instead! Wouldn't that be fun?"

While, yes, it would be fun, I can't say that I disagree with the idea that we should fire science teachers that support creationism. I can't say this, because I completely think they should be fired. This is the right thing to do.

And i wasnt sayin that all subjects will be replaced someday. i was saying that they change. they are modified and added onto, and in some cases are given different names.

Oh, is that what you meant? Because when you said "It is probably safe to say that a completely different set of subjects will be added to on or even replace the ones we have today," I interpreted that to mean that, well, a completely different set of subjects will replace the ones we have today.

So, you mean we'll learn more? Yeah, I agree with that.

@ Rydrum2112
There are anthropologist that study bones and the process of evolution. its called physical anthropology. it studies the the evolutionary process of human beings and close related species. I am not denying evolution. I understand the theories that fill in those gaps. they make sense.

Oh.

Then why bring it up?