Loch Ness monster cited by US schools as evidence that evolution is myth

Sometimes extremist religious are so ridiculous pretending to adoctrinate others with their beliefs that are able to surpass the jokes done in many humoristic sites. And it is the case, that they are a joke of themselves. But the worst is that they are bringing their ignorance to others, propagating that incredible ignorance and the hard arguments that they give to refute proved things like the Evolution of Theory.

Can be taught in schools as a fact things that never have been proven? Like the Loch Ness monster, even if that teaching is done in private schools? Should be regulated that teaching? That clearly is wrong, or in name of the free speech and individual freedom schools should be able to teach their students anything? Every nonsense or damaging doctrine. Because from my point of view, this education done in this private schools is not education, is pure uneducation. Its goal is create zombie minds. That goes against the goal of the schools.

And the worst is not that schools privately are teaching that nonsense. That would be acceptable. But the worst is that there are vouchers for the students to go to this fundamentalist schools that don't have anything to envy to other fundamentalist schools of different religions Is it tolerable that the public money, the money of all, being used to finance fundamentalist teachings and in other words, finance a religion(Christian religion in this case). That is not going against the laicism of USA? Against the constitution?

Source:Scotsman: Loch Ness Monster Cited by US Schools

Extract:

And making some jokes of some arguments seen in Twitter, youtube made by some really intelligent creationists:

- If the world is millions years old, how is possible that just we are at 2012?

 

There are some truly stupid people in the religious sphere. Take the young earth creationists; you explain to them that we can measure the speed of light, and work out how far distant stars are from the length of time that light has taken to reach us by triangulation and its colour spectrum-in many cases millions of years. Then you ask them how, that being the case, their god could have created the universe 6000 years ago.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/08/food.fishing

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVE...TheDeep/Plesiosaur-Japanese-Fishing-Nets.html

Just means scientists can talk out of their arses as well.

 

No, it does nothing of the kind. The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, promulgates such nonsense, as in your link.

 

I'm not saying they can't but I don't see how your links shows that any are.

 

The animals are extinct ... or maybe not.
Scientists got it wrong in one case and maybe the other.
Of course, that doesn't prove a lot else except scientists **** up from time to time.
Same goes for nessie. If it ever turns out to be real, it still proves crap all either way.

 

Science is not the truth , it is our struggle to find the truth and to explain ourselves and the universe.
What we know so far may be 100% wrong but i will take that over religious BS any time of the day.
The role of schools is to inform kids of what we know so far and tickle their mind to advance this knowledge themselves , to quest for the truth and seek for explanations , "god did it" is counter productive , lazy and gives to children the wrong impression about themselves and the world around them. Seeking logical explanations and using knowledge to solve problems is a far far better way to advance into life from believing in a sugar daddy that will make things work for you while all she/he/it/they require(s) is to fall on your knees and do nothing.

 

Nessie is not and never will "turn out to be real". It's a myth, a story, a fantasy creature sold to tourists, and widely known as such by anyone with an ounce of reason.
The article in the OP even says as much, yet like the DI, you persist with the misinformation, seeking to blur the lines between truth and fabrication and "debate the controversy" where none exists.

 

No scientist worth their salt makes definitive statements, they reach conclusions based on the available evidence. There have been lots of species reasonable believed to have become extinct only for survivors to be found later. That doesn't mean the initial conclusion wrong, only that the evidence was incomplete (as it always is).

It most certainly doesn't mean the scientists were "talking out of their arses", which was your assertion.

The fact the fish in the Guardian article happened to be "prehistoric" is irrelevant. The same thing can (and does) happen with more "recent" species. Your other link seems to be a whole load of speculation with a clear religious bias - nothing to do with science at all.

 

So let me understand this. The OP is against parents sending their children to schools with curriculum that they approve of and only wants their children sent to schools with curriculum that he approves of.

The OP is going to decide for parents how best to raise their children for them?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true definition of a liberal.

 

Private schools should be able to teach anybody anything they want. Unless you hate freedom of speech, then I understand why you'd be opposed to it

 

Yep, this is why the voucher plan is so good. If parents don't like the curriculum they have an easier option of moving their kid somewhere else. Unlike the OP who wants to decide what should be taught in every school, I believe that a variety of choices is the ideal way to go.

Let parents decide what they want their children to learn.

 

I agree private schools should teach what they want , creationism even for example. Just as long as they stay private and get no tax dollars.

 

Why do you get to decide what curriculum gets tax dollars or not?

Half the country believes in God and creationism to some degree so that should more than justify it. Just because you don't like it is irrelevant. I don't like scientology but many parents do and its ultimately up to them, and part of their tax money, to send their kids where they want.

 

IMO creationism should be taught in Sunday School, not in any science class.

Further, to teach creationism raises other problems.. There are hundreds of creation stories. .. Which would you teach?

And, creationism undermines the actual purpose of the stories.

 

If your gonna take tax dollars you have to submit to what the majority says the curriculum should be and also what the constitution prohibits. Why should general tax dollars be used in catholic schools teaching that christianity is true?

 

Like you said, that is your opinion and you are not the parent of these children. Their parents have their own opinions and should be allowed to raise their children according to what they believe, not what you believe.

 

Why should tax dollars be used in schools that teach Christianity is not true?

 

Thats what home schooling is for.

 

Of course.. they can teach their children that the earth is flat for all I care, but not in science class.

 

If you don't like what's being taught then don't send your kids there. As such, you shouldn't be telling other parents how to raise their children.

 

Look at schools like MIT and Ga Tech.. They don't teach creationism.

You can certainly teach your children that man walked with the dinosaurs and the earth is 6,000 years old...

 

No. The OP is against any child being taught lies as fact. That is definitively illiberal.

 

Help me out here folks.If in Evolutionary theory Man evolved prehistorically from
Apes,then where and how did Apes evolve.
I mean,we're right back to what came first,the Chicken or the Egg.

 

Actually the theory is not that man evolved from apes but that apes and man both evolved from a common ancestor. The so called missing link. Apes and man are cousins and there is a lot of genetic DNA research that validates that now. We are learning more all the time.