This was my first comment on the topic: "Despite my personal feelings, no discussion on religion of any kind in any K-12 classroom. After that, it's elective to go on to college, so no problem." You responded to it. In fact, your post started the conversation. Having trouble keeping things straight?
I do not "Ignore" the topic, I dismiss it as a failed hypothesis for lack of data and possibility of verification. Evolution does not "Create" what you want it to, it creates change in organism based on environment and competition. If speech and language do not benefit they are not likely to be passed on and take huge timeframes, changes in anatomy and brain function....A snake is simply not a probable candidate. We humans ARE the example you are looking for though Cetaceans probably have language as well.
Your asinine strawmen are duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons. Onus is entirely on YOU to PROVE that there was NO matter/energy in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang which formed existing matter/energy into the current state of the universe. That RNA/DNA fallacy is yet another religious/creationist ploy to disparage science. Had you actually read/comprehended the articles and/or scientific studies they deal with the PRECURSORS that would be necessary. The scientific process is one of discovery and and understanding. It is still ongoing so while that poses a threat to the theists/creationists running around and denying science is not going to stop the scientific process. The question that the theists/creationists need to be addressing is how are they going to reconcile scientific facts with their superstitious beliefs. And you might want to refresh your knowledge of the OP since it deals directly with religious creationism and education.
This is why creationism doesn't really have a place in school. It consists of nothing more than religiously inspired denial of science in favor of a supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe and of life. It's a waste of time for a school to address it, because there are no facts backing it, just conspiracy theory-type thinking directed at the science behind evolution, and so at evolution itself. Creationists concern themselves primarily with casting doubt on that science, which is not needed because science is a fundamentally skeptical endeavor in the first place, quite the opposite of religion and creationism.
So funny. So, in your own words, your own hypothesis is failed as it also lacks data or verification, right? Funny thing about setting absolutes... In any event, the question is still what causes or what led to the introduction of nucleic acids. And more, what caused them to replicate into more comlex strings, you know, like RNA/DNA. We haven't even gotten to the creation of an organism yet, have we? If you cannot demonstrate the viability of spontaneous organization, you couldn't ever get to organism evolution at all.
This road has been so often travelled I know the route by heart and blindfolded. Having dealt with many who much like you refuse to see or cannot understand the literal reams of data supporting evolution I know better than to bother with this rabbit hole. Have A Nice Day
And yet we aren't actually discussing evolution, we're discussing scientific recreation of the spark of life event, and before you dropped it, the existence before the "big bang". But, run all you want. You still don't have any evidence in nature, or in the lab that supports spontaneous creation of nucleic acids, do you? So, instead of dealing with that, you'd rather run away. Ta...
Yes.... the idea of raptors as being quite intelligent is taken seriously by some scientists. Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Future of Our Planet By Donald R. Prothero https://books.google.ca/books?id=4py5xVak_yYC&pg=PT30&lpg=PT30&dq=raptors+warm+blooded+and+intelligent&source=bl&ots=LP8L6lvQ1c&sig=Zj0NiqdVyOFRlDu0BYxsf7HwZF4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-w_aExLDaAhXPMd8KHVytAVEQ6AEIczAH#v=onepage&q=raptors warm blooded and intelligent&f=false
Since there was no "no" option, I picked "I am not sure.... but our kids are a mess so we have to consider this!" but only agree with the part of the answer that I underlined and bolded.
A significantly more Theistic Version of Evolutionary Theory could potentially alter the world economy in many positive ways. Near death experiencer Rabbi Alon Anava states at the one minute and fifty second mark in this video that HaShem........ "the good angels that are HaShem's cameras......that are sent down here...... and everything that you do is filmed on 17 cameras..... in high definition... and then they go up" (Rabbi Alon Anava) ....... If Rabbi Alon Anava is correct...... and I firmly believe that he is.... and if an Intelligence who evolved in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy...... has invested 17 high definition cameras / angels.... in each of us then........ it is apparent that each human life has much more value to the G-d who evolved and planned an essentially infinite number of Big Bang type events over infinite time in the past...... than we can possibly imagine for ourselves. Could G-d really send 17 angels.... .who are like high definition cameras to each of us??????? Is that how near death experiencers who are having a Life Review can see their lives from many different perspectives?????? https://www.near-death.com/science/research/life-review.html
LOL - your OP title says "yes or no" but your poll has no option for no. It's always interesting to see the actions of folks who put belief above reason. Helps me to understand how a man like donald could be selected president.
Yup........ I made the following statement just this morning on a Facebook group: Torah vs New Testament So..... this may help you to understand: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/220289 Sanhedrin to Trump-Putin: Fulfill Cyrus-like role in Jerusalem With the two top world leaders supporting Jewish right to Jerusalem, Sanhedrin asks that they build Third Temple.
You don't say? I just made the following statement this morning about how unreasonable it is to ask a "yes or no" question in your OP and then not include a "no" option in your poll.
"In universities yes... .but not in schools." This option is similar to No.... because several variations on Evolutionary Theory or Creationism are already taught in universities. So by choosing "no" ... would somebody mean that they want to stop various alternatives on Evolutionary Theory or Creationism from even being taught in universities?
That is not "no". I didn't say I would vote no. But as a general proposition, I don't believe religion should be taught in schools except in religion classes.
So only the wealthy are entitled to an education? The Founding Fathers were very explicit about needing to have an INFORMED electorate so public schools are the best means to achieve that goal.
EVOLUTION in schools: Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution • A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring. • Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them. • Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened: — More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources. — Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources. — Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring. — Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others. — Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation. — Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct. Details by chapter. CREATIONISM in schools: God made everything with magic. End of lesson.
Only the wealthy? We are living int the information age. Anyone can learn about whatever they wish for free.
The information age only happened because everyone was provided with a public school education. Are you alleging that public schools have been made redundant?
And that includes access to the skills necessaty to teach children reading, writing and critical thinking?