Howard Baker passes

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't really know much about the whole scientific debate. From what I've heard, there is a lot more science that supports the evolution theory, but I've heard there are plenty of holes in that theory too. I think a lot of the stuff that they were teaching has turned out to be totally false. Didn't they used to claim that we evolved from monkeys? Now they know that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

Anyway, I don't know exactly what the science is now claiming. But as I said in the last paragraph, I think a lot of the evolutionary theories we were taught as kids have turned out to be false. So if there are hugs gaps in the evolution argument, is it reasonable to teach an alternative approach, in addition to evolution? I'm not sure. I'd have to hear the latest scientific arguments from both sides.

Here is an article that says that everything we've been taught about evolution is wrong. This is not a partisan article either. So if everything we're being taught is wrong, should we just continue to teach that and exclude alternatives?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...on-genes-wrong

Rupert's debating strategy

1. Completely ignore the question or point made
2. Claim not to be an expert in something in as an excuse to not answer
3. Completely go off in a new direction
4. Post a link to support his position always his links are "unbiased" and from "experts"
5. Go to step 1