Is it true that in some states teaching Darwin's evolution theory is forbidden by law? In which states then?
107080
No, it was not forbidden, but there were some places where a sticker was supposed to be put in the textbooks, stating that evolution is "a theory, not a fact". This happened in 2002 in Cobb County, Georgia. In another place, teachers were supposed to read a statement to the class warning them that evolution is "just a theory".\nThere's a picture of the sticker and more details in the link.
550523
Just remember, evolution is an untested, unproven theory.  In fact, it cannot be tested or proven.  If one looks at the scientific method and what constitutes a theory, evolution barely qualifies, if at all.
8362
Simply because Darwin used well developed (by humans, but well developed nonetheless), well proven, scientific methodolgy instead of relying on the dogmas of a belief system to base his observations on.\n\nKeep in mind that, in science, there are very few  laws any longer.  Everything is a theory because, especially after relativity, scientists discovered that our universe doesn't stay consistent as you move into and out of certain states (like the speed of light).  However, this does not eliminate the theory as quackery or false.  It means that the theory can only be applied in certain circumstances (it's relative to certain states) so it cannot be a "law" as laws are immutable.\n\nThat being said, science only has observable evidence as it's foundation (or provable evidence through mathematics).  Darwin observed the various species on the Galapagos islands and drew conclusions as to the nature of their adaptations (long beaks, short beaks, etc.).  He also observed that various birds with nearly identical characteristics had slight variations in their adaptations.  This caused him to draw other conclusions.  In short, he used a scientific process to develop early versions of his theory of evolution.  It has been scrutinized since, and the only ones "disproving" it have been those who belive religious texts are God's absolute word.\n\nI am a believer in Christ, yet I see no issue with believing there is truth to Darwin's theories.  Did God ultimately create all things?  Of course He did.  However, is the Bible absolute in it's description in the origins of life?  Probably not.  Even Christ, according to the biblical record, spoke in stories (parables) most of the time so people would understand his message and have examples to work from.  He rarely spoke in absolutes, and when he did it was usually only with the apostles.\n\nI belive that Genesis is a parable describing God's creation of all that is, in an understandable way since it is unlikely that we will ever completely understand how He did it.  However, even I admit it is only a belief, and may be wrong, like Darwin may be wrong, or literal interpretations of Genesis may be wrong.
478750
Yes actually, in this very country. There are very few instances of it, but the fed. government has set up reservation-like areas for Practioners Of Old Principles And Religions, or P.O.O.P.A.R. You typically find these areas in sparsely habited or states that nobody wants to be in, such as Kansas, Nebraska and northern Nevada.
171179
As far as I know, the US is unique in this. The US is the main western industrialized country struggling with this debate at the moment. The opposition to evolution is mainly from the fundamentalist Christian right wing. However, I have found some web sites that describe opposition to evolution by Hindus, Muslims and Jews for a variety of reasons.
129108
Your question is perhaps worded wrong.  I think the main debate is "In which lessons should evolution and creationism be taught."\n\nEvolution is a scienbtific theory, that is it can be tested, measured, shown to be true/false by observation, experimentation, research and review of other linked facts. Our kowledge of the subject can be developed in the same way.  This means that it should be taught in or as a Science.\n\nEvolution can not be investigated by any of these methodologies, nor does it stand scrutiny by them, nor can our knowledge be increased.  It depends on faith as the main driver and therefore should be covered in a Religion, Theology content lesson.\n\nBefore I get dragged over the coals by hard line Christians, I am a Christian myself.  I would ask you to remeber that we need to debate and discuss not listen to fanatic rantings.  Even the idea of Intelligent Design is difficult to support, but I will tag this question and look forward to the debate.
132350
Any of the following:\n1. Abortion is illegal\n2. Gay marrige is illegal\n3. Dinking is illegal (for any age)\n4. That evolution be taught in schools ONLY as a possibilty insted of truth (or not taught at all)\n5. That all schools must teach creation by God at least as a possibilty, if not truth.\n\nI would love to see any of these, but I'm sure I never will. Rats.
162206
In the UK there is no interference from religious fundamentalism in our Science classrooms.\nWhen I taught Biology, every syllabus did consider Lamarkism, Creationism & Darwinian Evolution. But the emphasis was upon considering the evidence and the reasons for prefering evolution as the more likely.\n\nAs previous answerers have concluded, there is a failure of both the general public and of fundamentalist Christians to appreciate the concept of evolution (and the greater proportion of science for that matter).\n\nI am deeply concerned by the inroads that Creationism is making into Biology teaching in the USA. It is a scary thought that any religion could specify how we must think.\n\nI have every sympathy with your plight. Please do not give in to bigotry.\n\nADDITIONAL: I've just had a look at the website mentioned in the previous answer. I am appalled - it is nonsense. Very worrying.
276163
My friends in Europe find it outrageous that America would even consider banning evolution from the classroom or teaching creationism along side it.  As far as I know, very few Europeans believe in creationism and reject evolution.  And I'm fairly sure the phenonomon of asking it be taught as science is uniquely American, and is aptly called a psychosis.\n\nshiba: I didn't say anything about the government banning the teaching of evolution (although many states have made frightening leaps in that direction).  However, many creationists do advocate it (spend a few minutes looking around this site if you don't believe me), and the government is taking them seriously enough to pass laws mandating that students be told things like "evolution is a theory, not a fact," and "there are many gaps in the theory of evolution."\n\nWhen you ask that creationism be taught along side evolution you're not asking for equal rights you're asking that Christianity be given more voice than other religions.  Creationism is based in religion.  Evolution is a part of science.  Science is not a religion.  Religion is not taught in public schools.  Teaching creationism in schools infringes on my right not to be Christian (unless, of course, you're prepared to mandate the teaching of Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, and Satanist ideology as well).  Every relgion has its own creation story.  To teach only the Christian one is not giving Chrisitanity equality, it's giving it exclusive favoritism.\n\nThere is no reason under the sun why the Christian story of creation should be taught in a science classroom.  But if it were, you would have to teach EVERY story of creation.  There is no more evidence to support the Christian creation story than there is to support the theory that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  And don't bother to quote the bible at me, that does not constitute scientific evidence.\n\nYou actually don't have the right to force every child in the country to listen to your religion in science class.  Sorry, but that's not a reasonable request.  You're not fighting for equality, you're fighting for government-sanctioned superiority.
148697
Different laws for different states.
1113877
Some are, certainly, but far from all of them.  Some of it's supporters are quite intelligent people.\n\nMost of the proponents of Intelligent Design want it to be taught in schools on an equal footing with Evolution - and therein lies the problem.  Evolution is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is not.  Instead of theory, Intelligent Design is a philosophical viewpoint.  \n\nHere is a quote from wikipedia: "Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results."\n\nIntelligent Design CAN NOT BE TESTED.  Anything that can't be tested is not science.  \n\nOf course, this doesn't mean that claims arising from the philosophy of Intelligent Design are not true.  What it does mean, however, is that "Intelligent Design" is certainly not an example of science.  \n\nLet me make this very clear - I am not stating that Intelligent Design is bad science, I am stating that it is NOT science.\n\nSo let's all just be honest and present Intelligent Design for exactly what it is - a point of view.  It should be taught in any class that tackles philosophical notions.  It has no business being represented as science, because it isn't.
129404
NO!!!  The first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  Providing funds requires the passing of a law appropriating those funds to a religious establishment, which clearly violates the first ammendment.\n\nAlso, in the two examples you mentioned, there are the minor problems that abstience only education doesn't work and creationism is false.\n\n_______\n>>>the first amendment is to protect religion from government\n\nIf you're going to make the argument that science is a religion, it has just as much right to be protected from the government as Christianity does.  That means that the government can't fund programs that teach creationism, which states the evolution is false.\n\nEven if we reject the argument that science is a religion, the funding of one religous organization will, essentially without exception, hurt religious that have different beliefs.  Funding one religion demonstrates government support of that religion and therefor deligitimizes other religions.  You should think things through a bit more before making such wide-reaching claims.\n\nYou might also note that the archaic term, "respecting," simply means "with regard to," or "with reference to."  Under the First Ammendment, the government is not allowed to make any law having to do with religion.  It neither states nor implies protection one entity from the other.\n\n>>> A religious organization that participates in non \n>>>religious activities \n\nRead the question! It asks about funding religious activities.  These are, by definition, not non-religious.  I see no problem with government funding of truely non-religious programs that are run by religious organizations.  However, these are fairly uncommon.\n\n>>>evolution, an unsubstantiated theory\n\nI've already addressed this issue.  See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atp.CHfigmi9FyUQWAxBvTLsy6IX?qid=1006022407766 .  If you'd like me to expand on any of those arguments, just ask, and I'd be happy to do so.  Evolution is far from unsubstanciated.\n\n__________\n>>>If tax dollar is poured into the activities like research, \n>>>scince & technology, human resource development, \n>>>disaster management, energy exploration, environment, \n>>>health etc., why not the same cannot go to fund \n>>>religious activists\n\nWhy not?  Because the contitution expressedly forbids it, that's why not!  Last I checked, the constitution doesn't prohibit funding of disaster management or healthcare.  Besides which religion is far to controvercial for the government to start taking sides, which is what funding religious organizations would essentially amount to.
374300
Actually, Charles Darwin discredited his own theory before his death, but few evolutionists recognize this fact.  Also, according to the second law of thermodynamics and a little thing called entropy, it is scientifically proven that all things move towards chaos.  Evolution suggests that we went from chaos to order, when, in reality, everything moves from order to chaos (for example, a fire causing wood to turn to ashes).  Personally, I have yet to find a scientific fact that disproves creationism.  Remember, science is simply man's way of explaining God's works.
321606
The answers I see to this question sadden me about the state of our country.\n\nThey reject evolution without understanding it.  They think "theory" is a bad word, when it is just an accurate word for a testible mechanism explaning the diversity of life on earth.  Theories are not meant to be proven, so to say that evolution is unproved is a non sequiter.  A theory is an overarching testable explanation for phenomenon.  Repeated test in geology, biology, genetics and other fields do have PROVEN expirements that support the theory.  To claim otherwise is either a lie or ignorance (usually the latter).\n\nThey think all scientists are evil, deceitful and lying, despite the fact that many of them are Christian and not one (not one, mind you) of the millions of scientist have ever come out and said "It was just a hoax!  Evolutionists are all liars!!!".\n\nThey hold that a mere religious belief somehow trumps empirical fact.\n\nAnd worst of all, they bascially say that their God is too incompenant to have used evolution as the mechanism to bring about Man.  They think he has to work like a magician pulling literal rabbits and humans out of a hat, and fail to credit him with the ability to simply create the elegant and simple mechanism of evolution.\n\nIt is indeed sad to see such strawman versions of evolution trumpeted as being the real deal.  Ignorance is not bliss.\n\nAmazingly about 60% of Americans don't accept evolution as a valid theory (again, not a bad word).  In all other industrialized nations, that number is in the teens at the highest.  We are already failing in math and science compared with the rest of the world, and this anacronistic way of thinking will only hasten our downfall as a technological powerhouse.\n\nPerhaps they should all actually study what evolution ACTUALLY is, as opposed to parroting the empty platitudes of creationist websites and ignorant preachers.
996510
That is a very interesting insight.....however i dont think evolution should be taught in sunday school, everything has a time and space. In school, I think there should be taught both things, that way the person has a right to choose whatever view they desire.
635775
No responsible science instructor would suggest that Darwin's theory is a fact. It may be supported by a massive preponderance of evidence, but is nonetheless theory. That said, gravity is a theory as well, but no one floats away.\n\nBiology students need only to understand Darwin's theory and to be able to work with it, not to believe that is a fact or even to believe that it is the best theory.
14157
No law has been passed in any state allowing same sex marriage. The only state in which same sex marriage is legal is Massachusetts, and it is legal there because a court ruled that banning homosexuals from marrying was unconstitutional, based on the Massachusetts state constitution.\n\nThe judges' ruling was based on the idea that granting homosexual couples different opportunities is inherently unequal and since the state produced no compelling reason why homosexuals should be forced into this unequal status, it cannot be constitutional.