ANSWERS: 94
  • I objected to calculus and I had to learn it. Somehow I think they'll manage;)
  • Yes, they should be required to learn it, as it is a scientific fact. It has tons of empirical evidence to support it.
  • I object to slavery but I learnt about it in history. doesn't hurt to learn about things you don't agree with. It gives you more to make up your own mind with.
  • How can they object to something they haven't learn about yet. Yeah you know the adam and eve story is much more realistic and believable than science.
  • Sure, why would you not want to learn it? You don't have to believe it.. unless you're scared of being converted.. in which case you're obviously not very sure about your current beliefs, and should examine the issue very carefully from all angles before deciding what you actually believe.
  • they should not be required but have the option
  • Yes. There are many things in school I objected to that I needed to learn. Knowledge is important whether I agree with it or not, it helps me communicate with my fellow humans and what better way to construct an argument against evolution than when you understand the theory behind it? None. To combat a foe you must understand them. Why not learn it.
  • I think that it is very important for the children to learn about a topic that is as controversial as evolution. With all of the opinions that they hear about evolution, I think it is important that children and teens learn about the evidence so that they can form their own opinions. The best place for them to learn in an objective manner is through the school system. I do think that it is important for schools to stress that evolution is a theory, and that scientific theories are meant to be tested and questioned, and are not fact. A healthy scientific mind questions everything.
  • As someone who does not believe evolution to be true... yes, i think they should. Considering that the general populace believes it, it ought to be taught to everyone, if only as a theory that may not be true. I think part of being educated is understanding what other people think, not just what you think.
  • I object to Algebra. Guess what... I still had to take it.
  • yes sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Definitely yes. It is healthy and simply intelligence building to learn critical thinking and science. I'll even say it more strongly, they should learn it from someone who is an evolutionist.
  • Yes, why should a student not learn other people's opinions and beliefs. How would they get a full education without understanding opposing view points?
  • No. They should be allowed to drop out and join the work force. School isn't for everyone.
  • They should be require to fail science/biology
  • I see that I already answered this question and I also see that this is about the only topic in AB that gets negative ratings if you disagree with evolutionists.
  • Yes. We make them learn the axioms of mathematics, the laws of physics, so why not biological laws as well?
  • How can you object to something without understanding it?
  • No they should not be forced to learn it. Whether they object because of religious reasons or they object to evolution because they think that it's nonsense, (I have met several atheists who think that), they should not be force-fed something just because the teachers think that it's necessary or the parents feel that it's correct. Evolution is "not" a vital part of biology or science in school. Children are not stupid but some parents and school teachers try their best to make them that way. Let the kids choose what classes they want to take.
  • Yes, and they should be treated for mental illness too.
  • yes. for teachers, there is a big difference in teaching something and advocating it. it's like learning about christianity in history class. the athiests still have to learn about it, even if they don't believe in it.
  • No, it shouldn't be forced on them. However, the schools should not be forced to not teach it either. If you object to something in school so much that you refuse to learn it, then you don't learn it and you fail. That sounds like a fair compromise to me.
  • Should students who object to math not be required to learn it? They are more than free to go back to believing some old jewish sadist sprinkled jesus dust and the world instantly appeared but not exposing them to science is just negligent.
  • If they have never learned it then they have no basis for objecting to it, so yes. But even so, of course they should just as students who object to math should learn it as well. +5
  • Yes. If they do not learn about evolution, they should not be allowed to advance in class level, graduate, or gain admittance to university. I hate math, and could figure out how to solve problems without algebra or calculus. So why did I have to learn it? Students who do not learn curriculum are hardly students at all.
  • If they want to pass, yes. If they want to fail then they can just skip class like all the other good little truants who are setting themselves up for a fall.
  • Just as Intelligent design should also be required, but they want no part of that!!!
  • Knowledge is never a bad thing. Both the theories of evolution and intelligent design should be required teaching. The more knowledge an individual possesses, the better he is able to think.
  • So someone didn't like the fact that they were not agreed with on a question about school curriculum... No where in this question did the subject of religion come up. Obviously, it was a trick question about praying in school? Down rate as many of us as you like, if you don't learn curriculum set by education system standards, you are not fit for any professional career - ever. You'd be suspect just sitting behind a freaking desk - your stubborn insistence illustrating your unwillingness to do the simplest of tasks - you'd use your religion to excuse yourself from jobs. Like those pharmacists who refuse to fill a doctors' prescriptions because it is "morally wrong" for them to dispense pills THEY wouldn't take? You are "objecting" to something you are ignorant about - you have chosen a path of denialism, which furthers your agenda for religious control. The FACT of evolution, or if you will, NATURAL SELECTION supercedes your desire to believe in myth and legend.
  • I object to Geometry - I don't care what the numbers say - GOD did everything, and your are a BLASPHEMER to think that you can measure the side of a square by using the DEVIL'S RULER! Now, why is this sort of argument, any less ridiculous when applied to Evolution?
  • No as science is being proven wrong every day and has already messed us our lives enough.
  • You can't actually require someone to learn something -- there's just no way to force education without resorting to unethical methods, you need the cooperation of the student. However, there's no problem in this case with simply failing students who don't get the job done. I would agree that a student who refuses to attend class or study the material should be failed.
  • Should students who object to Thomas Hardy be required to read it? Learning often involves the ability to formulate one's own opinion based on the evidence presented. Being required to learn about evolution does not mean having to accept it. If that were the case, all the children who learn Religion in schools (which is compulsory in schools in UK up to age 13/14) would be practicing all the religions that are covered on the syllabus.
  • There are students who are squeamish about death and they're required to learn dissect frogs. I thought it was stupid to talk to something I couldn't see and was punished for it. It was an enlightening experience. You should open your mind to all possibilities.
  • I think evolution should not be taught at all. However, if you have no choice, you should take notes for future reference. What I mean is, if you believe that God created the earth, as I do, you should learn what evolutionists believe and show them where they're wrong.
  • Should students who object to math, english, social studies, spelling......etc. be required to learn them?
  • There are a lot of things that I object to .. don't mean I'm not going or have not learned about them ... We need to learn as much as we can about as much as we can so we will be informed and educated .... It doesn't hurt to have knowledge ; it is how we apply our knowledge that counts ...
  • I objected to wrestling and basketball but was still required to participate. Probably was some weird kind of character builder.
  • If they want to receive an accredited degree or diploma, of course. For the same reason that the same student would be required to learn that 2+2=4. Whether or not they object to it doesn't change it's accuracy.
  • If they do not want to hear the truth, it is all up to them. To deny evolution is basically denying 1+1=2.
  • Yes because part of being well informed is knowing both sides of any argument and being intelligent means making your own logical deductions based on all the information available. If nothing else, hearing the other side will just reinforce your views.
  • No one should be forced to learn anything but not learning or participate should have it's consequences as ignorance does have it's consequences in real life. However if the student wants to just sit in the class and doodle or read the bible while it is being taught that is up to the student. If the teacher wishes to disipline the student for non participation the student should comply, this would be a small price to pay for what their saviour Jesus went through. However if they need to learn the information in order to pass an exam then yes, they should be required to learn it. In our school we had Jehovas Witnesses that didn't participate in the Religious Education class. They just failed the class that is all, they were not punished but that was at the discretion of the headteacher (principal). However, if they wanted to study theology at higher education they would be required to pass the course.
  • How are you able to make a well informed decision about what you choose to believe when you only know one side of the story? I think they should be required to learn it, there were a lot of things in my curriculum in school that I didn't agree with but I still did it. That's life!! Get used to it!
  • It they are taking a science class then no:):)
  • Yes, or else they are functionally uneducated.
  • From what I hear they are also incorporating gay lifestyles into the program. I guess if we gotta learn about evolution we should learn about the gay sex too?
  • Most likely this will be the case regardless of your stance. But this will give you opportunities to share what you know to be true.
  • No I thick if stusents have a religion that they shouldn't have to. anyway it callec the theory of evolution. I think schools and science are inconicderate
  • I think you have it backward...how can one object to the theory without knowing about it? Sounds ignorant to me...
  • I am an educator and here is what I think. I think you can teach evolution and intelligent design (the belief in a higher power) in an educational manner without promoting either viewpoint. I am a Christian, so I don't agree with evolution either but as long as it is presented as one of many different theories I have no problem with it being taught, as long as the other side of the fence is taught as well. I think you can say "some people believe this" while others think "humankind was created by a higher power."
  • They should still know it, I think. It's great to get a different perspective on things.
  • I object to learning, should I even go to school? Your question is similar to the one I just put down.
  • NO ... WHAT A HUGE WASTE OF TIME!! ENJOY THE FOLLOWING: PROFESSORS: GIG’S & GENG’S WISDOM TIME AGAIN: EVOLUTION: Monkey-Ape Time Mrs Iva Tail To Tell (Dean of Makittup University) declared, "Our direct forefathers were gorillas. We straightened our backs and shortened our arms. The latter [or is that ladder?] meant we couldn't have such high shelves of course. But you can't have everything. Yes, we must have come from gorillas because they look more like us on the outside than anything else. That's obvious proof". "Yes", said Prof Gig (Professor in nuts bolts and screws of all kinds), "many years ago they used to talk about how intelligent dogs were, but now we say how intelligent gorillas are. Soon we will have research to prove that they are more intelligent than all other animals; if we can get someone to fund it". Mrs Soarit of Perth WA says, "I watched it on TV, how they put a monkey in a room with a box and put a banana on a string that he couldn't reach. The monkey worked out to move the box over and get onto it to get the banana. The only thing is I've seen a dog do the same thing years before". Dr Ivanew Mith (Vetinary Surgeon of Wefixit Clinic) said, "a gorillas stomach is very different from ours and many other parts. If we ate what a gorilla eats in a day (bamboo shoots) we would be dead. We are more like a horse in eating habits and can eat most things they do. Also we can eat most things birds eat. So horses or birds must be our closest relatives". Dr R E Movitt (Brain Surgeon of Qurem Hospital) said, "Talk is made of people having a so called "human" extra piece on our brains, that apes don't have, that makes us more intelligent. But there are many people who are born without this section as a deformity but it creates no thinking or action disability: The person is completely normal". Prof Gig stated in regard these things; "there are always facts we need to ignore in the pursuit of theoretical science and funding. In this case quite a lot of facts. But then we also get a lot of funding here, as it's a popular theory". Miss Itneedsta Makesens commented, "even if we found a group of monkeys that once wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that apes changed into man. All it would prove is that we found an intelligent group of apes. And anyone with any imagination could come up with another theory of our existence that would sound far more realistic than apes changing into people _ or at least equally as irrational". Why didn't I evolve into a human so that nothing would step on me? Evolution Dr F Roard (Phd., DOB, FBI, KGB, MIA, POT) said, "things all changed by deformities that survived and got passed on. So we believe that something as complex as an eye just happened by chance. Over MILLIONS of years, of course. It makes it sound more believable when we say that because no one can conceive millions of years. So each deformity that went into making an eye was passed on to the next generation. Now I know what you are thinking. You are wondering why we can't seem to find loads of animals, insects or people existing today with only partly formed eyes. Yes, it is true that there would need to be countless masses of them, for the working eye to exist on such a large scale. Particularly considering the seemingly endless intermediate steps and those who would have therefore failed to evolve the rest of the eye correctly by chance. We try to ignore these facts in the interest of 'truth'. And the theory is popular." Professor Messa of the Institute for Lost Scientists said, "We believe the other theory where evolution happened because things decided that they needed to change for their environment. Animals also did this. A lizard decided that it wasn't safe or getting enough food on the ground so it thought about the problem and decided that wings were the best solution to the problem and so he'd become a bird. It realised that this would take MILLIONS of years, of course. So as each of its children were born the lizard passed on his plan so that the children would carry on that approach to the problem. They, in turn, had to pass on this approach to their children to resolve the problem also. He had to make sure that they kept on with that plan or they would die out from the problem that they needed to change for. Fortunately he could foresee this problem becoming bad enough to need to make this change MILLIONS of YEARS before they actually would die out. Strangely enough lizards didn't die out anyway. So it was all in vain. But birds are glad that lizards did so; and now some birds feed on lizards, making it all the better that lizards didn't die out, but leaving lizards wondering about the wisdom of it." Miss White of Brisbane asked, "If we are evolving does that mean we may end up being little green men and going to other planets"? Professor I Dunno of the Institute for Unemployed Scientists said, "one day life just suddenly sprang up and there was an incredibly complex living cell". I asked how this could happen. He explained that it was sort of statistical/magical luck. "Then the cell got lonely and decided it wanted another one; so it worked out how to evolve so it would be capable of splitting (highly intelligent these cells); and did so. And then there were 2 of them", he said. "And before you know it they were just splitting everywhere and we had piles and piles of them: All over the place". I asked him how no life had ever existed throughout all eternity before that time? "Well this has probably happened elsewhere, I'd suppose", he said. "So this amazing magic of an appearing complex living cell just popping up from nowhere has happened other times you feel professor", I asked? "Well, over many MILLIONS of years, you see", he replied. Mr/Ms Los Tie-Dentitti says, "women have evolved into men's bodies". Mr I. L. Watchit asks, "I saw a documentary on TV about moths in a place in England. They explained how there used to be more light moths and few dark ones because the dark ones were seen on the light trees and eaten by birds. But now with so much smog the trees are dark and there are more dark moths, as the birds eat the light ones. But this only proves survival of the fittest. This doesn't prove the evolutionary theory because it was already known when the theory was invented. To prove the theory evidence would have to come forth to prove the theory itself, not the known facts it was based on."? Mr B Acake of Sydney asks, "as I have rheumatism in my back wouldn't it have been better to have stayed without one"? Of evolution Dr Pluggitt of Drippie University states, "yes, we now know that bugs turned into people". When I asked him how this could possibly be, he explained, "yes, well, it all happens over MILLIONS of years, you see. Anything can be believed if you talk about MILLIONS of years". PROFESSORS GENG AND GIG – AT IT AGAIN!! QUESTION: If we were to search for the Dead Center of EVOLUTION, would we find it at Darwin Cemetery, in Fred Flintstone’s Dinosaur Zoo or at a Barney’s Rubble’s Skeleton Bank??!! Ezekiel, Skeleton Bank Teller: ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones…’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Oh hear the word of the Lord.’ Dating Methods Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required". Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it". Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old". Elder Harris (The Church of Jesus Christ LDS missionary) questions, "I have heard that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"? Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool". Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get".
  • NO ... it is just a waste of time. SORRY! I made a mistake; so I will now enter the info I had intended to enter: Please note the following: PROFESSORS: GIG’S & GENG’S WISDOM TIME AGAIN: EVOLUTION: Monkey-Ape Time Mrs Iva Tail To Tell (Dean of Makittup University) declared, "Our direct forefathers were gorillas. We straightened our backs and shortened our arms. The latter [or is that ladder?] meant we couldn't have such high shelves of course. But you can't have everything. Yes, we must have come from gorillas because they look more like us on the outside than anything else. That's obvious proof". "Yes", said Prof Gig (Professor in nuts bolts and screws of all kinds), "many years ago they used to talk about how intelligent dogs were, but now we say how intelligent gorillas are. Soon we will have research to prove that they are more intelligent than all other animals; if we can get someone to fund it". Mrs Soarit of Perth WA says, "I watched it on TV, how they put a monkey in a room with a box and put a banana on a string that he couldn't reach. The monkey worked out to move the box over and get onto it to get the banana. The only thing is I've seen a dog do the same thing years before". Dr Ivanew Mith (Vetinary Surgeon of Wefixit Clinic) said, "a gorillas stomach is very different from ours and many other parts. If we ate what a gorilla eats in a day (bamboo shoots) we would be dead. We are more like a horse in eating habits and can eat most things they do. Also we can eat most things birds eat. So horses or birds must be our closest relatives". Dr R E Movitt (Brain Surgeon of Qurem Hospital) said, "Talk is made of people having a so called "human" extra piece on our brains, that apes don't have, that makes us more intelligent. But there are many people who are born without this section as a deformity but it creates no thinking or action disability: The person is completely normal". Prof Gig stated in regard these things; "there are always facts we need to ignore in the pursuit of theoretical science and funding. In this case quite a lot of facts. But then we also get a lot of funding here, as it's a popular theory". Miss Itneedsta Makesens commented, "even if we found a group of monkeys that once wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that apes changed into man. All it would prove is that we found an intelligent group of apes. And anyone with any imagination could come up with another theory of our existence that would sound far more realistic than apes changing into people _ or at least equally as irrational". Why didn't I evolve into a human so that nothing would step on me? Evolution Dr F Roard (Phd., DOB, FBI, KGB, MIA, POT) said, "things all changed by deformities that survived and got passed on. So we believe that something as complex as an eye just happened by chance. Over MILLIONS of years, of course. It makes it sound more believable when we say that because no one can conceive millions of years. So each deformity that went into making an eye was passed on to the next generation. Now I know what you are thinking. You are wondering why we can't seem to find loads of animals, insects or people existing today with only partly formed eyes. Yes, it is true that there would need to be countless masses of them, for the working eye to exist on such a large scale. Particularly considering the seemingly endless intermediate steps and those who would have therefore failed to evolve the rest of the eye correctly by chance. We try to ignore these facts in the interest of 'truth'. And the theory is popular." Professor Messa of the Institute for Lost Scientists said, "We believe the other theory where evolution happened because things decided that they needed to change for their environment. Animals also did this. A lizard decided that it wasn't safe or getting enough food on the ground so it thought about the problem and decided that wings were the best solution to the problem and so he'd become a bird. It realised that this would take MILLIONS of years, of course. So as each of its children were born the lizard passed on his plan so that the children would carry on that approach to the problem. They, in turn, had to pass on this approach to their children to resolve the problem also. He had to make sure that they kept on with that plan or they would die out from the problem that they needed to change for. Fortunately he could foresee this problem becoming bad enough to need to make this change MILLIONS of YEARS before they actually would die out. Strangely enough lizards didn't die out anyway. So it was all in vain. But birds are glad that lizards did so; and now some birds feed on lizards, making it all the better that lizards didn't die out, but leaving lizards wondering about the wisdom of it." Miss White of Brisbane asked, "If we are evolving does that mean we may end up being little green men and going to other planets"? Professor I Dunno of the Institute for Unemployed Scientists said, "one day life just suddenly sprang up and there was an incredibly complex living cell". I asked how this could happen. He explained that it was sort of statistical/magical luck. "Then the cell got lonely and decided it wanted another one; so it worked out how to evolve so it would be capable of splitting (highly intelligent these cells); and did so. And then there were 2 of them", he said. "And before you know it they were just splitting everywhere and we had piles and piles of them: All over the place". I asked him how no life had ever existed throughout all eternity before that time? "Well this has probably happened elsewhere, I'd suppose", he said. "So this amazing magic of an appearing complex living cell just popping up from nowhere has happened other times you feel professor", I asked? "Well, over many MILLIONS of years, you see", he replied. Mr/Ms Los Tie-Dentitti says, "women have evolved into men's bodies". Mr I. L. Watchit asks, "I saw a documentary on TV about moths in a place in England. They explained how there used to be more light moths and few dark ones because the dark ones were seen on the light trees and eaten by birds. But now with so much smog the trees are dark and there are more dark moths, as the birds eat the light ones. But this only proves survival of the fittest. This doesn't prove the evolutionary theory because it was already known when the theory was invented. To prove the theory evidence would have to come forth to prove the theory itself, not the known facts it was based on."? Mr B Acake of Sydney asks, "as I have rheumatism in my back wouldn't it have been better to have stayed without one"? Of evolution Dr Pluggitt of Drippie University states, "yes, we now know that bugs turned into people". When I asked him how this could possibly be, he explained, "yes, well, it all happens over MILLIONS of years, you see. Anything can be believed if you talk about MILLIONS of years". PROFESSORS GENG AND GIG – AT IT AGAIN!! QUESTION: If we were to search for the Dead Center of EVOLUTION, would we find it at Darwin Cemetery, in Fred Flintstone’s Dinosaur Zoo or at a Barney’s Rubble’s Skeleton Bank??!! Ezekiel, Skeleton Bank Teller: ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones…’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Oh hear the word of the Lord.’ Dating Methods Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required". Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it". Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old". Elder Harris (The Church of Jesus Christ LDS missionary) questions, "I have heard that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"? Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool". Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get". Can Knowledge be considered a sin, seeing Adam and Eve partook of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil? NO! In fact, God has said: "Ye cannot be saved in ignorance." ALL of life's experiences are 'bent' towards our continued learning. Even animals and insects continue to learn. We are given all the variety of life's experiejnces that we might learn. It is particularly important that we learn by our mistakes. God wants us to "repent". Repentance means that we learn to make a life change to our original nature or tendencies. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." I believe, we don't know Him, until we learn of Him. Knowledge is Godly ... but we must use it with wisdom and propriety. Intelligence is the Righteous use of knowledge ... and the Glory of God is intelligence. If we return to the incident of the serpent and the partaking of the tree: Remember, God knows ALL things from the beginning, because He l;ives in eternity, and all things - past, present and future - are before Him constantly. He knew where Satan was going with the tree. God actually needed Man to grow for himself. So, it was expected that Adam would partake of the fruit that "would make him wise". Satan actually fell into God's bait!
  • People who reject evolution are moronic I consider people like that to be almost sub-human
  • As the prevailing theory.
  • No, they should burn in hell
  • Yeah. lol, just because they can't wrap their mind around the idea doesn't mean they shouldn't learn facts. I object that 2+2 = 4, shoudlI learn math at all? Of course, it doesn't matter what I believe.
  • Of course. The truth won't hurt them. Just because some morons don't believe it, doesn't make it not true.
  • That is like trying to say if students object to math, should they be required to learn it? Evolutionary science is probably the most fact based science in history. Genetic research could never be as accomplished today without evolutionary science. Yes even if students object to evolutionary science they should still have to learn the principles of the science.
  • I find it difficult to understand how a student can object evolution while he really hasn't learnt about it. It's called arrogance.
  • Yes, because learning about the opinions that oppose your own challenges you to advance your understanding, your intellect, and your own opinions. People "play the devil's advocate" for a reason: if you don't know the weaknesses of your own argument, how can you fully grasp it? What kind of a person are you if you believe in things you can't fully understand? A weak one, and a pawn. Shutting yourself off from the world--and that includes other people's opinions of the world--is not an intelligent way to go about your life. Exposure to the world can only be a good thing.
  • It's a theory, gente! That which you resist, persists! I mean, really, if people think that just reading up on something or hearing discourse on it will make your ears bleed and "convert" you, then they are weaker that they know. Nothing can change one's convictions if one is truly convinced of them. Shoot, I love to talk to people about religion and listen to them talk about their beliefs yet that does not change my mind about what I believe, which is that the magic trick that is creation, is just a myth.
  • Yes, they should... Why would I say this? Because I did and I think I am turning out fine... I believe that you should never blanketly disagree with something until you know at the very least the basics about it... I personally do not subscribe to evolution, but that does not mean I think it should not be taught... Because if it is not taught, then how can it be studied? and if it is not studied, then how can it be critiqued and perfected? Every side of an argument should be taught everyside to the argument from experts on their respective sides, then those who are searching for answers can then make informed decisions... But alas, that would be a perfect scientific world and it will not happen... Why? Evolutionists are too proud to let that happen, and Creationists are too stubborn to let that happen... (Reminder that was a general statement of my experiences with both camps and not reflective of anyone in particular)
  • I don't think anyone should have a choice or be able to refuse to learn ANYTHING. Religion should be taught in CHURCH, by each denomination, except for the subject religion or coparitive religions. Chritianity and Judaism are derived fron Zoroastriansim a faith that is still practiced by Millions today. Look it up.
  • Evolution is an unproven theory and should be taught as such. Because it is pervasive and widely believed by the gullible, all kids should be learn the theory, at least for general knowledge.
  • I think it's good to learn about everything, that way you know what other people think. Just because you learn about it though doesn't mean that you are obligated to believe in it. You have the free will to decide for yourself, if it is right. And while you are learning it, I see no reason why you shouldn't feel free to toss out your own ideas, about why you feel like the idea of evolution is wrong.
  • I am a student in my Jr. Year and I like learning about evolution. But no matter how much of it I learn I still think it is wrong. Actually, I think I might know more about evolution than I do the God of the bible.
  • Not necessarily an impossible thought such as God but what people say the God of the bible has done. In the bible it talks about a mountain called Mount Sinai. Now-days it is guarded buy the Islamic people. There are only two men from America who went there and made the film “The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai” I would highly recommend you get it and watch it. The bible was written by 41 men in three different languages over a span of 3000 years. No other book has been able to stay as consistent as the bible. In the Old Testament there were over 400 different prophecies made about Jesus. The New Testament was written 400 years after the Old Testament. But in the New Testament all 400 plus prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus. The chances of all those prophecies being fulfilled is insane. It is the same as if the state of Texas were filled three feet deep with silver dollars and one gold dollar. Then having some one go out and pick the gold dollar on his or her first try. Scientifically, the whole earth is so complex and so many varying ways there are millions of parts to keep the world in working order. If anyone of those parts were to be tweaked in the slightest bit the world would be destroyed. For random chance to create such a magnificent almost perfect sphere (which I have no idea how it eroded in space) is absurd. The entire oceans salinity is gradually decreasing. So, if the world is billions of years old there would be way too much salt for any life form to live. Also, the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. And I ask you how did such a sphere enter the earth’s gravitational pull and start orbiting at any time since whenever. You may have some good theories on how these things may have happened but there still is no evidence to support them.
  • I am a student in my Jr. Year and I like learning about evolution. But no matter how much of it I learn I still think it is wrong. Actually, I think I might know more about evolution than I do the God of the bible.
  • I am a student in my Jr. Year and I like learning about evolution. But no matter how much of it I learn I still think it is wrong. Actually, I think I might know more about evolution than I do the God of the bible.
  • Yes they should Pesky science anyway...why learn about established facts when myth and voodoo are so easy to believe instead. hahah
  • YES! Just because you study something doesn't mean you believe it. It's not going to hurt anyone to learn about science, includind evolution!
  • Despite their stern faith, the potential to offer an perceived fiction allows leverage to their bold stance or slightly cripples them to a point of acceptance
  • To Maverick ... The computer would not let me submit my answer as a comment Not necessarily God but what people say the God of the bible has done. In the bible it talks about a mountain called Mount Sinai. Now-days it is guarded buy the Islamic people. There are only two men from America who went there and made the film “The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai” I would highly recommend you get it and watch it. The bible was written by 41 men in three different languages over a span of 3000 years. No other book has been able to stay as consistent as the bible. In the Old Testament there were over 400 different prophecies made about Jesus. The New Testament was written 400 years after the Old Testament. But in the New Testament all 400 plus prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus. The chances of all those prophecies being fulfilled is insane. It is the same as if the state of Texas were filled three feet deep with silver dollars and one gold dollar. Then having some one go out and pick the gold dollar on his or her first try. Scientifically, the whole earth is so complex and so many varying ways there are millions of parts to keep the world in working order. If anyone of those parts were to be tweaked in the slightest bit the world would be destroyed. For random chance to create such a magnificent almost perfect sphere (which I have no idea how it eroded in space) is absurd. The entire oceans salinity is gradually decreasing. So, if the world is billions of years old there would be way too much salt for any life form to live. Also, the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. And I ask you how did such a sphere enter the earth’s gravitational pull and start orbiting at any time since whenever. You may have some good theories on how these things may have happened but there still is no evidence to support them.
  • Yes I don't like math amd economics but I took them. Religion is best aught in Bible Schools and Hebrew schools. That should be a choice that can be refused and not required. Courses about religions should be offered and certified christian and other scholars should teach them if they are qualified and have the credentials. Not just somebody who "Believes"
  • This sort of thing really annoys me. I don't mean to be rude about it but it just shows how ignorant some people can be. Learning new things is exactly what cures you of that ignorance. You should be willing to learn as many things as possible, and if you do, you will find that the world is a much bigger and more awesome place than you could have ever imagined. After you have educated yourself, only then can you really decide what is right and wrong.
  • no because god will help them along every step in their pretty lives. in fact they should not be required to learn anything that is not in the bible. bless you.
  • As long as they don't mind failing in the education system then they should be allowed to remain ignorant of anything they want to. They should not be given any free passes in Earth science or biology just because have been confused into believing something else. Most kids believe they don't even need to go to school should we say OK to that too?
  • They should let their moms home school them through uni
  • Absolutely. Firstly, how can someone object to a theory if they haven't learned about it? Secondly, why (other than religious reasons) would anyone object to learning about evolution?
  • Yes and if they refuse they should be failed. The same with young Earth creationists, if they refuse to accept the evidence from geology then they should be failed. It's a fact that we are born without faith or belief in god. Truly innocent. But as we get older the propaganda of religion is forced upon us and we dutifully accept it as truth because our parents and other grown ups wouldn't lie to us... would they? But they were duped themselves ad infinitum. Basically if you refuse the accept the evidence and facts that modern day science has discovered then you obviously are rejecting the benefits they bring and you shouldn't be rewarded for your ignorance.
  • No. But we will require them to give up their opposable thumbs. Let's let it be their call.
  • Home school ones only. For you homeschool hotties I am free for the homeschool prom. I will be happy to take your mom along to the Ramada Inn with adjoining rooms for the after party with you. Lets try to make it a family GOOD TIME
  • i think they should learn about evolution but not as a scientific fact cause is only a theory it can't be pro but always is good to learn about the belief of other people so sure why not
  • no, because evolution is a theory not a fact.
  • No more than they should be allowed to reject that 2+2=4 just because they object. Objection doesn't change evidence. Objection to something like this without offering a better scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is just ignorant and fanatical.
  • Yes, it's part of science and that's core curriculum. In a free society we should be able to learn what free inquiry has produced to date.
  • Yes, as it is the basis of all current life science.
  • I don't know that it should be required, but they should certainly understand a position before they reject it.
  • YES YES Just as they (the kids)are required to learn math. Just as they are taught how to tell time or make change.
  • Yes, it is a vital part of Science, so everyone should learn it. Students are too young to choose what they study in school. Students could object to history, geography, mathematics, literature, etc., but they still need to learn them. There is no good reason to object to evolution.
  • No, of course not, but they should be made to wait in a room where the "theory" of gravity does not apply.
  • i dont think so

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy