A group of scientists from a respected Cleveland university is endorsing a candidate for the Ohio state board of education because the incumbent he's opposing has voted
against teaching evolution in the state's schools.
Not exact matches
(i) a woman's right to choose; (ii)
teaching evolution in school; (iii) medical immunization of teen girls
against HPV; (iv) assisted suicide; (v) gay marriage; (vi) my right to view art and theatre deemed «offensive,» «blasphemous» or «obscene» by theists (vii) basic $ ex education for older school children; (viii) treating drug abuse as principally a medical issue; (xi) population control; (x) buying alcohol on a Sunday; (xi) use of condoms and other contraceptives (xii) stem cell research.
(CNN)- Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to
teach their children to deny
evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back
against the popular TV host.
You do understand that
evolution encompasses all living things and that it would be very difficult, nay impossible to
teach fruit fly's to not compete
against each other
See they can
teach evolution in schools, not due it being a conspiracy
against the poor persecuted christards like you but due to it being based on solid acceptable evidence... regardless of how stupid you may wish to continue to be on the subject, you don't change the facts.
(i) the question of gay rights — funny I agree with gay rights, must be a political debate at its heart (ii) a wonan's right to choose — funny I agree with this, see above thought (iii)
teaching evolution in school — again I agree (iv) my ability to buy a glass of wine on Sunday — definitely politics here (v) immunizing teens
against HPV — got my kids immunized, not even politics here (vi) population control — this is religions fault??? no this is cultural (vii) assisted suicide at end of life — agree with that, still have my religion (viii) global warmning — agree it needs to get fixed, doesn't have anything to do with religion
However, biological
teaching about
evolution guards itself
against the intrusion of purposes in another way as well.
They have carried on an all out battle
against the
teaching of the theory of
evolution in the public schools.
And to the
evolution talk, my main reason
against it is: It is not completely proven, yet it is
taught in schools like it is.
Thirty leading scientists and science educators including Sir David Attenborough, Professor Richard Dawkins and Professor Michael Reiss, and five national organisations have signed up to a new statement calling for the extension of
teaching of
evolution in school science and firmer statutory guidance
against the promotion of creationism.
Commenting on the panel and its critics, Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the
teaching of
evolution in schools, objected to the «hijacking» of science for arguments about religion: for or
against.
But finally they just wore down the moderates on the board, and they ended up with a standard to replace that old, bad strength - and - weaknesses one that been used
against evolution with a phrase that is still going to be used to beat up the publishers, still going to be used to try to get
evolution taught as bad science in the state of Texas.
In 1868, the roles of women, science, and religion are under scrutiny and often at odds with one another; Darwin's The Origin of Species is only nine years old, and its ideas of
evolution are beginning to knock
against the
teachings of the church.
In 1925, Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was indicted for
teaching evolution against state law.