Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And what is so devastating about that is that people are stripped of their value, and I hate that, because that is a lie. Young, impressionable students are taught at a very early age by authority figures that they are just the results of random chance and beneficial mutations. [...]And I object to that thought, because people ARE very valuable beings - they are of great worth! Every one of you who post here on Entmoot is an incredibly valuable being, both to me and to God.

Personally I don't mind having a onecellular entity as my pre-pre-pre- ect- ancestor. It teaches me humilty and gives me a connection to this world. And I think that's both a very good thing to have. However it doesn't mean I don't have value. But my value comes from myself, who I am and who I can be, not from the possible fact that I'm created by a god. In fact if I'm only valuable because I am a created being, this would make me very sad. But I can understand other people like it the other way around.

Originally posted by Samwiselvr2008
Evolution should be taught in public schools but only if they also teach about creationisom and all of the other main beliefs also, it should all be said as "some people believe" or "it is possable" and stuff like that it should not be said as the treuth. So, that's that, I would post more, but my sister is nagging me about getting online, so I have to go, be back later to reply and add to this post. Tell me what ya think!

I think it's a little over the top to go saying "some people believe in evolution". A better way would be saying "The current evolutiontheory is the best scientific theory available today.". When I got evolution in biology classes we learned about the history of evolution and the older, now disregarded theories too. It was very smart to do so because we learned that evolution was not answer to all problems. Creationism was largely dealt with in religionclasses. Personally I think that's the best way to do it.

PS: Samwiselvr2008, it's feel not fill. Each time you type fill, it reminds me of a christmas turkey.

Originally posted by Lizra
Bliss Ninny versus Toxic Granny.

That's one match I'd love to watch! *brings out the popcorn*

[Jesus Freak]

isn't evolution a religon or faith not science? cause you have to have faith that matter came from nothing and that if you gave an empty jar ten trillion years it would create matter . and what about the physical laws? so why can't we take nothing , make it explode it and make something? i will even be nice and give you a rock an tell you to spit on it for a million years(the theory that it rained on the rocky surface for millions of years and made a primeval soup that all creatures evolved from), then tell you to make something only as complex as a human eye. it is also obvious that the schools should be left to the states not the guys in D.C. you should read th dec. of independence. i say we teach both evolution and other religions in the public schools or not teach any.

P.S. Science means knowledge not faith.

[Jesus Freak]

oh and coney i would read you bible before saying that my Lord is behind your beliefs.or you might be thinking of a different Jesus than He who died for our sins.

oh and Jesus is ALLWAYSALLWAYS spelled with an upper case J.

[HOBBIT]

Yeah, well JesusFreak, it is obvious from your posts that you know very little about evolution - and it is science not "faith."


Creation should NOT be taught in school - that should (and IS STAYING) stay in religious schools and in private schools - no way public schools. It is all faith. Sure I guess you can't disprove, but in no way can you.. its not science in the least and has no place in the science class room. maybe in a bible studies course.

Plus, why the heck should the christian creation story be taught? hello, there are like 50 million other creation stories from other religions and cultures, all JUST AS VALID as the one in the bible. So there. :P

short post since i am in a very big rush...but i got my point accross.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Jesus Freak
oh and coney i would read you bible before saying that my Lord is behind your beliefs.or you might be thinking of a different Jesus than He who died for our sins.

oh and Jesus is ALLWAYSALLWAYS spelled with an upper case J.

Nope, I think I'm thinking of the right jesus.....bearded bloke, ran the catering for outdoor events, ran a small wine distillery, pretty good with a chisel and wood, had a little medical knowledge, hung around with 12 men,...........ended his days hanging around with a couple of criminals? That the one?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Plus, why the heck should the christian creation story be taught? hello, there are like 50 million other creation stories from other religions and cultures, all JUST AS VALID as the one in the bible. So there. :P

I would agree with you, honestly I would. It does seem to me a bit unfair. But this creation story is both Jewish and Christian, and I think Muslim as well, though I'm not sure about that. Obviously, they can't teach ALL of the viewpoints, so it makes sense to me that the most commonly believed ones (evolution and Judeo-Christian(Islamic?)).

He wasn't always bearded. They pulled it out when they killed him.

If you don't mind, Coney, I've often wondered what you believe about all this? Do you believe that the world came about by a Big Bang, or was created by the Gods? What about life? Mankind?

If I'm being too intrusive, sorry.

[Cirdan]

...except that the class it would be taught in is science, not creation. The biblical creation story is not science. The closest existing general curriculum that would be appropriate for any bible studies would be a history class.

[samwiselvr2008]

That is another thing that you could argue about, is evolution a religion or not? Personally I believe that it is a religion, but other people say that it is not, oh well, that's just me. The first thing that we probally have to decide before we kick the teaching of evolution out of school though, is if it is a religion or not? Answer that and I can go on with.

P.S. Rian, can I post what you PMed me a while back? I printed it out, so I could retype it, plus I think that I have it saved to some folder, so I could copy and past it over here, but I want your permission first.

[The Ben]

Nick, this has already been done. No.

[Rían]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
P.S. Rian, can I post what you PMed me a while back? I printed it out, so I could retype it, plus I think that I have it saved to some folder, so I could copy and past it over here, but I want your permission first.

Could you please PM it back to me first? I think I may have put some personal-type things in, and I'd like to check first. Thanks for asking

[IronParrot]

Hmm. It looks like most of the arguments against teaching evolution in schools reduce to one of the following:

- "Evolution is just a theory"
- "Evolution is not fact"
- "Evolution has some flaws"

These are in fact the same argument, so I'll address them together. In a sentence: these concerns do not preclude the theory of evolution from being scientific, and thus teachable.

"Evolution is just a theory"

Yes, it's a theory. So is Newton's Theory of Gravity. Are you anti-evolutionists out there saying gravity shouldn't be taught in schools?

The Origin of Species does not claim to be a canonical document (unlike some works I won't mention ) - biologists and geneticists have refined Darwin's theories over the years in the same way physicists like Planck, Einstein and Schrodinger revised the trappings of the classical models of Newton and Maxwell, and chemists like Bohr and Pauling patched up the flaws of Mendeleev and Dalton's theories.

"Evolution is not fact"

And neither is the Theory of Gravity. It lends itself to some pretty neat calculations regarding the proportionality of gravitational force to distance, and generalized orbital calculations (escape velocity and such), but recent developments in physics - namely, field theory - blow it right out of the water. Even though the currently accepted explanation is that gravity is not a force, but rather a spatial distortion, Newtonian gravity is still taught because on a macroscopic level, it is still applicable.

Similarly, while the Darwinian Evolution has some flaws, they do not preclude it from being the groundwork for the best and most thoroughly reasoned explanations we have of the mutability of life, contrary to what Plato may say about things being modeled on absolutes.

"Evolution has some flaws"

What's the purpose of a "theory", anyway? It's a model for predicting experimental outcomes, thus leading to the design of new experiments and (hopefully) new breakthroughs in science. In short, new theories that fix the mistakes of the old one. And now we have genetics, the field that finally makes biology a science rather than "stamp collecting" as Rutherford called it.

Evolution may not be solid "fact", but in science, there are no such things as facts, just increasingly accurate models. You teach children at a certain level of accuracy, which lays the groundwork for further refinement. Gravity is an example, as I already pointed out. Mathematics are another - the axioms and operations that children are taught are specific to the domain of real numbers. Evolution is a critical foundational step to understanding the concept of genetics.

Should we eliminate all mention of radioactive carbon dating from schools as well, because that mechanism can be used to date the age of the planet as far older than what the Bible implies? (If the Bible is taken literally, that is. If it isn't, there's no contradiction with evolution in the first place.)

Now let's look at Creation, and why it shouldn't be taught.

Is it scientific? No. The so-called "Creation Scientists" who say otherwise are definitionally wrong.

Scientific discovery is inductive. In other words, theories are created to fit the data within a margin of error. (Note that they have a margin of error.) It is a cardinal sin of experimentation to forcibly fit data to an expected theory. Old theories are discarded upon being disproven, though sometimes reused if (and only if) their error is negligible. The Conservation of Energy, for example.

But what happens if we adhere to the Bible? Then our reasoning becomes deductive. We are fitting the data to what the Holy Book says. The theory cannot be derived from the evidence alone.

As I have observed, the proponents of "intelligent design" use complexity as "evidence" in this regard. "Things are complex, so they must have been designed." Absolute rubbish, and a complete misunderstanding of the concept of entropy.

And what of its applicability to further studies in the field of biology? None. So what's the use of teaching it in the first place (theistic propaganda aside)? None. At least evolutionary theory leads to further scientific studies. Teaching Creation as science is in fact harmful, as it distorts the inductive nature of the scientific method.

If you don't like a theory, come up with a better one that is inclusive of the successes of the previous case.

It's increasingly obvious to me that Creationists don't have a problem with macro-evolution, just that Man was somehow a product of it. And really, macro-evolution and long-term speciation has been verified in a few cases; the prehistoric ancestry of horses, for example. That fossil record is complete. There is indeed a missing link in the "apes to humans" part last time I checked, which is why it is so contentious.

[IronParrot]

Oops... I read the first page again and realized that not only was my last post a complete rehashing of stuff I've said before, but I started this thread too...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
[B]...In fact if I'm only valuable because I am a created being, this would make me very sad.

Would you be sad if all the people in the world were pictures made by framing accidental, random splashes of paint, and YOU were a picture made by Rembrandt? (ignoring the fact that pictures can't think ) That's the idea I'm trying to get across. Given the view that we were created by God, we have an inherent value - Rembrandt makes fabulous paintings, and God makes incredibly complex and very valuable people.

And I agree that what we DO is very important, and we should rightly be commended for our accomplishments (how did your practical end up, BTW?)

Now what people DO with their free will is another thing, and often a sad thing...

That's one match I'd love to watch! *brings out the popcorn*

You might get to see it - we got mad at each other on another thread.... *hopes Lizra still likes her*

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Would you be sad if all the people in the world were pictures made by framing accidental, random splashes of paint, and YOU were a picture made by Rembrandt? (ignoring the fact that pictures can't think ) That's the idea I'm trying to get across. Given the view that we were created by God, we have an inherent value - Rembrandt makes fabulous paintings, and God makes incredibly complex and very valuable people.

And I agree that what we DO is very important, and we should rightly be commended for our accomplishments (how did your practical end up, BTW?)

I would be sad if the other random splashes only valued me because I was a Rembrandt, meaning a painting MADE by Rembrandt. But that situation isn't aplicable here. Either everyone is a Rembrandt or everyone is a random splash. If God created man, he didn't make this one set of humans and let randomness create the others. So there is no difference in value. I get what you're trying to say, though.

OMG I just reread the paragraph, it sounds incredibly dumb....

Practical was handed in a month or two ago. Hopefully I get some points at the end of the schoolyear. I should be looking out for the next company to do a practical next year, though. This one is 7 WEEKS instead of seven days!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
..... Either everyone is a Rembrandt or everyone is a random splash. If God created man, he didn't make this one set of humans and let randomness create the others.....

Yes, I agree, but I was just trying to compare the two (which I think you understood)

Practical was handed in a month or two ago. Hopefully I get some points at the end of the schoolyear. I should be looking out for the next company to do a practical next year, though. This one is 7 WEEKS instead of seven days!

When do you get your grade on it?
Eep!! 7 weeks! Oy! Good luck!

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
That is another thing that you could argue about, is evolution a religion or not? Personally I believe that it is a religion, but other people say that it is not, oh well, that's just me. The first thing that we probally have to decide before we kick the teaching of evolution out of school though, is if it is a religion or not? Answer that and I can go on with.

P.S. Rian, can I post what you PMed me a while back? I printed it out, so I could retype it, plus I think that I have it saved to some folder, so I could copy and past it over here, but I want your permission first.

How could the theory of evolution be considered a religion??? That makes no sense. ITS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Plus, there are many many christians, jews, muslims, and people of all faiths that agree with it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would like to point out that there are many people of all religions who agree with many of the teachings of Christ, and indeed most of the Ten Commandments are agreed upon by the vast majority of people.

Coney, I will take your lack of response as saying that I was too intrusive. Sorry.

[Jesus Freak]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Yeah, well JesusFreak, it is obvious from your posts that you know very little about evolution - and it is science not "faith."


Creation should NOT be taught in school - that should (and IS STAYING) stay in religious schools and in private schools - no way public schools. It is all faith. Sure I guess you can't disprove, but in no way can you.. its not science in the least and has no place in the science class room. maybe in a bible studies course.

Plus, why the heck should the christian creation story be taught? hello, there are like 50 million other creation stories from other religions and cultures, all JUST AS VALID as the one in the bible. So there. :P

short post since i am in a very big rush...but i got my point accross.

you are right about the many different beliefs and maybe there shouldent be creation or evolution faiths taught in schools. again Science means knowledge. evolution is taken as part faith. same as any other views. for your infoormation i used to be an athiest

[HOBBIT]

*sigh* i advise you to read IP's post a few posts up.

[Sheeana]

Okay, my follow-up to Lief's Rapid Environmentalism theory. What I have discovered thus far is that it seems primarily limited to the Holocene sub-period, with cycles occuring every 1500 years or so. What I can discern from my research is that the aridity of the Sahara is a fairly new phenomenon: there were two significant time frames in which colder, dryer temperatures resulted in the aridity of the Sahara - the first was between 6,700 and 5,500 years ago. The second, which was significantly more brutal, lasted from 4,000 to 3,600 years ago. These drops in temperature are generally attributed to the "changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis. Some 9,000 years ago, Earth's tilt was 24.14 degrees, as compared with the current 23.45 degrees, and perihelion, the point in the Earth's orbit that is closest to the Sun, occurred at the end of July, as compared with early January now. At that time, the Northern Hemisphere received more summer sunlight, which amplified the African and Indian summer monsoon." Evidence presented by Martin Claussen (see below) via his CLIMBER-2 modelling implicated that feedbacks within the climate and vegetation systems were the major cause of Saharan desertification, building rapidly upon the effects of the initial orbital changes. While this research appears to support your supposition for rapid environmentalism, it does not however, support your case for catastrophism. The aridity, as mentioned earlier, was a relatively new phenomenon that occured over two incidences mid-way through the holocene. I could not find any research on this from earlier epochs (has any been done?). Furthermore, my research also uncovered that the Sahara environs consisted mainly of woodland/savannah, grassland and lakeside ecosystems (one theory on bipedalism is based on Aquatics, btw. The other is based on the thinning out of the woodlands.) There is no mention of verdent lush jungle climates occuring within the Holocene - this comes from the much earlier Mesozoic epoch which spanned several million years (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Warmer, and more moist. The 'reign' of the crocodile.) Futhermore, while DeMenocol's study of sediment (from cores) does document that African dust levels and offshore ocean temperatures rose and fell synchronously and very rapidly, pollen analysis indicates that these earlier rapid dry spells were more akin to savannah ecology rather than desert terrain.

I will add a couple of things to this. Firstly, I do not argue against your idea that the environment is cyclic (it swings from interglacial periods, to glacial maximums interceded with smaller fluctuations), and I do not (for now) argue against your idea that perhaps the Holocene period is subject to rapid environmental changes BUT I have only found two people who have put forward this idea, one of which based his studies on pollen analysis, and deep sea cores (of which I can not find the actual data to analyse.) My next point is that while the two researchers mentioned rapid environmental changes, it was also mentioned that not all changes were catastrophic, nor were all of them extreme. The extreme aridity for example, only occured twice, and both are fairly new to the ecology of the Sahara. Nor was there the extreme see-sawing that you implied. During the Holocene the environs mainly shifted between savannah/woodland, and lake ecosystems.

To be continued...