Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Sheeana]

The other thing I would like to add is that both references cited in my research are quite dated. I could find no new research on this topic, so if you could further enlighten me, that would be terrific.

Finally, the event of the Holocene also beckons the arrival of Homo Sapiens, neolithic farmer: around this time, agriculture is making its first appearance, and as such, so are the first man-made greenhouse gases that are associated with farming. Perhaps the event of farming also had an impact on the environment?

Which leads me to my next point: I would like to examine evidence again put forward by the Potsdam institute. In another research proposal, they used an Earth system model to "investigate the interactions between climatic warming and the shifting of vegetation zones in North Africa and Siberia." They describe Earth system models as, "expanded climate models which describe the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, vegetation and ice masses." The models from this research showed that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, together with associated warming and with increasing precipitation in tropical regions, may have an especially strong influence on the vegetation at the southern margins of the Sahara and in the tundra. And this is the interesting bit: thereby causing parts of the Sahara and the tundra to possibly change.

Anyway, I will follow shortly with a hopefully more brief essay on the process of fossilisation, etc.

Edited: I forgot to add that both the Sahara and the Antartic are considered to be geographical "hotspots" - the more extreme fluctuations that have occured in these two regions are not considered to be typical of the rest of the world.

References:

Martin Claussen of the Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung. 1999.

Peter deMenocal of Lamont-Doherty, /Columbia sciences research institute. 1998.

[Sheeana]

Whoops, did I do a Rian? The thread's come grinding to a halt.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Whoops, did I do a Rian? The thread's come grinding to a halt.

heh heh ...or a Cirdan.

This particular discussion begs the question. If the fossil record (ie pollen) extrapolates the weather, then why the leap back to say that this show a change of flora and fauna, since it is the basis of the analysis. What is missing is fossil evidence for extinction, non-migration of species, a lack of island (intra-continental, too) microcosms, etc. There is no basis to say that the presence of certain species somewhere in the drainage basin precludes the existence of any other species there. The pollen record is a limited view of the total biomass and and collected in sediment, reflects only population and not distribution. The pollen record would not document the time involved in the migration, distribution, and growth of species from the time that the conditions became compatible to the species until the time that there was significant pollen generation to record. The only conclusion that can be drawn scientifically is that climatic change can occur relatively rapidly which is not really news. Glaciation occured relatively rapidly as well. The hypothesis of rapid macro-evolution is not supported by any direct fossil evidence to date.

...and please stop using large mammals (i.e. horses) as examples of non-transitional species. The fossil record on these is extremely limited due to the terrestrial nature of the habitat (and that it is delicious). It's not as though we've found millions of fossils and there is no transitional species, but rather there are not enough fossils to judge.

[barrelrider110]

pardon me for digressing, but i believe a bird's -eye view is in order.

"we walk by faith, and not by sight"
2 Corinthians, 5:7

science is the process of observation, hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and further observation. science is a process, not an answer. science is the opposite of faith-- to paraphrase st. paul--to walk by sight, and not by faith.

faith and science, like oil and water, do not mix.

good theories predict the future.

quantum theory has have provided us with the microrchip, the cellphone, and God help us, nuclear energy. the theory of relativity has enabled space travel. yet both theories are irreconcilable: there is yet to be a unified theory. (read stephen hawking's "a brief history of time").

all theories are flawed. we are not endowed with the omniprescience of our creator, therefore we must make do with what we have.

the theory of evolution is a hypothesis. it belongs in the science classroom, but it should be taught as a theory, not fact. it's not a bad theory, but it is flawed.

faith-based theories such as "creation science" have no business in the science classroom--they are not based on observation, but a combination of faith and science-- that like oil and water, do not mix.

[Jesus Freak]

Originally posted by barrelrider110
pardon me for digressing, but i believe a bird's -eye view is in order.

"we walk by faith, and not by sight"
2 Corinthians, 5:7

science is the process of observation, hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and further observation. science is a process, not an answer. science is the opposite of faith-- to paraphrase st. paul--to walk by sight, and not by faith.

faith and science, like oil and water, do not mix.

good theories predict the future.

quantum theory has have provided us with the microrchip, the cellphone, and God help us, nuclear energy. the theory of relativity has enabled space travel. yet both theories are irreconcilable: there is yet to be a unified theory. (read stephen hawking's "a brief history of time").

all theories are flawed. we are not endowed with the omniprescience of our creator, therefore we must make do with what we have.

the theory of evolution is a hypothesis. it belongs in the science classroom, but it should be taught as a theory, not fact. it's not a bad theory, but it is flawed.

faith-based theories such as "creation science" have no business in the science classroom--they are not based on observation, but a combination of faith and science-- that like oil and water, do not mix.

i see a verry good point here.

however for more info go to drdino.com i recommend the 25,000 dollar offer and the questians section

[Eomer]

Yes evolution should be taught in school, but only as a theory.
it has never and canot be proven so they should say what is thought, but that it is only a theory. let people make up their own minds when they have both sides of the argument.
I rest my case.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
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.

It's hard to explane, I will try to pull up a website that could explane it to ya! *starts searching for website*

[Jesus Freak]

Originally posted by Eomer
Yes evolution should be taught in school, but only as a theory.
it has never and canot be proven so they should say what is thought, but that it is only a theory. let people make up their own minds when they have both sides of the argument.
I rest my case.

yes but some of this stuff isn't possible so how can it be a good theory

[Jonathan]

The theory should definitely be thaught at school. It doesn't matter if it's "right" or "wrong". The theory is accepted by a majority in the scientific world, and therefore it should be considered general knowledge to know what evolution is about. You don't have to believe in evolution, but how could you know you don't believe in it, if you haven't been taught what it is?

Let me draw a parallell to the ideology of the Nazis. I think everyone agrees that the kids in school should be taught what the Nazis believed in. Just because the Nazi ideology is "wrong", one shouldn't neglect teaching what it is about.


And evolution exists. Now, you might say that it's impossible to prove evolution, but there is always micro-evolution to look at. Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. You can see that right under your microscope.
Even if you don't believe that animals evolve, you can't say that evolution doesn't exist. The bacteria and viruses have demonstrated it. Bacteria and viruses do no longer look like they did when God created them.


The theory of evolution, good or bad, must be taught. It's general knowledge.

[gollum9630]

i agree wit jonathan.

you can believe God created the univers and everything in it. I believe he created the beggining of everything, and then everything else evolved from that, so yes, it should be taught in school

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Even if you don't believe that animals evolve, you can't say that evolution doesn't exist. The bacteria and viruses have demonstrated it. Bacteria and viruses do no longer look like they did when God created them.

You mean when humans first encountered them.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Lief- I have some time this morning, so I'm going to get to another aspect of your question to me. I'll make it brief, tho, because it is slightly OT.

You asked why I was so against evolution (forget exact wording) and I said I wasn't against it, I was just against those that said that creation by intelligent design couldn't be scientifically evaluated, while evolution could. To me, both are theories, and both have some testable tenets and some educated guesses that are NOT testable. And both are based on untestable beliefs - evolution, that there is no intelligent direction behind things, only chance; and CBID, that there IS intelligent direction behind things.

As I thought about it more, I DO have other objections to th. of evolution, which I had stated previously in this thread. These didn't immediately come to mind, tho, because of the wording of your question and how I interpreted what you were asking. So to be complete, I'll state my other objections. These are not scientifically testable, like many other logical things that people believe (such as the belief that a man named Tolkien lived and wrote LoTR, as discussed in the Good and Evil thread), but I believe them to be logical.

And I"ll put them in the next post, because I just got praised for not having really long posts, and I like it when people say nice things about me! (don't we all like it!)

Thanks for responding to my question in as much depth as you have .

I've written out my responses to all your various arguments, and I hope that I can successfully point out to you why I think they're . . . ah, not so accurate. You can completely disagree with me for the argument you posted here:

Originally posted by RÃ*an
while the latter is one simple, beautiful, elegant, incredible creative act, done right the first time (man was declared "very good"), and is more consistent with the character and "style" of God, IMO.

I think the serpent thing was a v. unique and one-time occurence, and not a model for evolution. The pillar of salt thing was just a funny thought I had that I put into the post I made to remind me to address your question more fully.

, but I don't think that many of your other reasons are completely on target. Very sorry, I know that's sounding awful .

I hope I can explain my reasoning adequately.

I'll start by making one point inside this same post, about the earlier part of the bit of your post I quoted directly above.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And finally, for Lief, re the salt pillar and the serpent changing -

I think the difference btwn single celled organism evolving and the making of man out of dust is that the former is simply rife with mistakes and death (remember, a mutation by definition is rare, and a beneficial mutation the rarest of rare birds, so all those UN-beneficial mutations would cause death and disfigurement and disease, etc);

As has been pointed out by Jonathon, I think, bacteria and viruses are known to evolve. We also know that our own bodies are capable of adapting to new environments they’re thrust into. I have given examples for fast evolution, like the Drosophila fly (Which was found in expirements to grow new wings) and the Burmingham Moth. I wish I was more up to date . Those are the only two examples I have . My Dad spoke of another far more major evidence for fast evolution that was discovered by scientists, but I don’t have any reliable information.

That's for fast evolution though, which is one of the things I've most been jumping on whenever I can find things for . I really should read a bit more on evolution in general, rather than focusing myself quite so much.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks again for making the long posts, RÃ*an.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
A Common Sense of Morality
(trying desperately to keep this short....) Now actually this part IS scientifically testable - one could pull in a statistically significant percentage of people and ask them if certain things are "right" or "wrong", and you could count the results. I think that everyone one here would admit, if they were honest, that at the very least some things are considered right and some wrong; and additionally, that people's sense of what is right and wrong is amazingly similar.

Now as C. S. Lewis points out, some of the details may differ (IOW, one culture may think it's ok to have multiple wives and others may think only 1 wife is right), but all cultures agree that there is some set of people with whom sexual relationships would be wrong. And some cultures may think that it's ok to lie to some people, while others think all lying is wrong, but all cultures agree that deceit/lying at some point is wrong.

Now when I say "all cultures", of course every person that has ever lived has not been interviewed; but I think - again, if you're willing to honestly evaluate things w/o a bias - you will have to admit that it is very, very observable all over the world. In fact, those few people that do NOT think these things are wrong are considered "abnormal" - that alone should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Anyway, to come to a screaming halt because this is getting long, the th. of ev. absolutely cannot explain this common morality - chance, by definition, is amoral, altho the RESULTS of a chance happening may be considered to be good or bad by an INHERENTLY MORAL BEING - i.e., humans who were created by a moral God and have a sense of morality instilled in them. So the whole argument of "well, things like not murdering or lying or sleeping with every man/woman came about because it was good for the species" are not valid because "good" has no meaning. And if you try to be sneaky and substitute "beneficial to survival" or some such phrase, then it still doesn't work, because that's just one step removed - you're saying that it's GOOD for a species to survive.

Morality I believe to be spiritual. I completely agree with C.S. Lewis in the quotes you gave of him, from Mere Christianity. So it’s true, morality is not (To me) explained successfully by science.

However, where does that leave us? The implication in your statement is that morality has to be scientific, and as evolution doesn’t explain it scientifically, it has some problems.

It doesn’t matter that evolution doesn’t adequately explain morality, to me, because that’s spiritual. Just as the soul is spiritual.

Atheism merely says that the beneficial mutations are random. A more biblically based point of view would see things rather differently, that they were designed that way.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And my second objection:

The results of the underlying premise of evolution

Now Lief, I disagree with you and JD, I believe it was, when you say that the theory of evolution says nothing about God. Of course, it is not explicitly stated as premise number 35 that "God does not exist". However, it does say that chance is the driving force behind the evolutionary changes, doesn't it? IOW, random beneficial mutations, etc. Of course, there is theistic evolution, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the basic th. of evolution that is taught in schools. And if you say that chance drives the events, then that by logical inference means that God does NOT.

That is a very good objection to the belief that chance is ruling everything . . . or is it? If God is in complete control of his creation, then doesn’t he completely control chance as well? Which means it’s not chance after all, but merely appears to be chance . . .

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 believe me, they are laughed at if they disagree with this. Well, then, what does that mean? It means that there was no loving Creator that made them, individually and carefully and tenderly in their mother's wombs, as the Bible says. Does a result of chance events have any inherent value? No. 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. And THAT is why the morality values are put into our hearts - it is WRONG to lie, it is WRONG to steal, etc., BECAUSE it is WRONG to HARM a thing of great worth and beauty - a valuable person, made in God's image.

I completely agree with you here. Except as far as it involves evolution, because it really doesn’t, you see? It involves a misinterpretation of evolution, which really is atheism. It shows that people are being fed false information in schools, which is a terrible shame. It shows that religion is being verbally, not scientifically, struck against in schools, and that inhibits parents’ freedom to bring up their child in the religion they choose. It is a terrible thing, and I think it’s ridiculous for people to think that Quantum Mechanics (From which stems the belief that everything is chance), that evolution or that the awesome things that are discovered by science and which DON’T contradict Christianity really do. It’s a misinterpretation of what people see. As the Bible says "We see as if through a mirror darkly, but when we reach heaven, we shall see clearly." Uh, that’s not an exact quotation, but that’s the gist of what a Bible passage says. It’s misinterpretation, and it’s Atheism, but it’s not wrong in those aspects of science themselves. So far as I can see, anyway.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ps - and that is why the whole "self-esteem" movement came about, BTW - people are told that they are worthy because of the things that they can DO, and in areas where there are winners and losers, well, GET RID OF THOSE AREAS! Give EVERYONE a trophy, because EVERYONE is a winner!

The truth, however, is that everyone is VALUABLE - NOT because of what they have done, but because of WHO has created them. And if you lose at a game, so what? Cheer the person who won, and you are still just as valuable as they are! Work hard to do well, but your achievements DO NOT make your value! You are valuable in spite of what you can do/not do. It is good and right to strive to achieve good things, but it doesn't set your value.

It sounds more like atheism that that self-esteem movement started, then. Evolution really doesn’t point one way or the other to God’s existence.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I have 2 main objections to the th. of ev. in the logical area (i.e., not scientifically testable in the lab, but the result of logical thinking and logical inferences) - first, that it has absolutely no explanation for the common sense of morality that is in people, and second, that the results of the premise upon which it is based are so devastating to people.

Your entire argument, to me, RÃ*an, is for something that is already very strongly set in my mind. It is against random chance, not against evolution.

Current science's view of chance is that it is random, because they see no reason to believe otherwise. Of course, they have no evidence that Quantum Mechanics actually are controlled by God, so they don't put that into their theories as a possibility. They deal with what they can see, and as you know, no one can see God. Christians can discern his hand in events, sometimes easily. God speaks to us through nature, through what he created.

There is no way science has of knowing whether this chance really is random, or whether a divine being directs it completely.

As for the morality, I think that that also is an argument against evolution and the physical realm being all that there is. Here again, I agree with you. However, I don't think that you should believe evolution or these current scientific theories to be flawed, simply because Atheists believe that the physical is all that there is. Some Atheists might teach incorrectly about it in schools, ignoring the possibility that there is a supreme being in control. This is simply because they're talking from what they know, just as we speak from what we know. They have part of the story, and they tell what they can see. We have another part of the story (Though plenty of people here will disagree, this is for RÃ*an), and we tell what we can see. It is sad when people learn only a part, and the less important part (The physical) of what is.

Just be careful not to misdirect your feelings on this. I believe evolution to be the wrong target, and so are most of the things science teaches at the present time.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana


Leif, last night I did some research on the climatology of Africa, specifically the Sahara. What I found does not support your supposition at all. When I have more time, I will post some of my findings, however, a brief summation of global geography follows:

Precambrian:

Archean 4600.* Crusts and Oceans
Early Proterozoic 2500. Carbonate sediments form
Riphean
~Early 1600
~Middle 1300
~Late 900. Violent upheavals and metamorphism
Vendian 650. Warm with shallow seas

Paleozoic:

Cambrian 590. Extensive volcanic activity and marine sedimentation
Ordovician 505. Continental drift and sedimentation
Silurian 438. Varying sea levels. New mountain ranges form
Devonian 408. Continents collide, raising mountain ranges; seas deeper and narrower
Carboniferous 360. New land rises from the sea; extensive swamps; coal formation.
Permian
~Early 286.
~Late 258. Mountain formation; glaciation in the southern hemisphere

Mesozoic:

Triassic 248. Extensive desertification, turning to hot and wet conditons
Jurassic 213. Mountain erosion; limestone forms. Atlantic Ocean opens
Cretaceous 144. Extensive swamps; limestone and alluvial desposition. Continents move apart

Cenozoic:

Tertiary Period

Paleocene 65. Extensive land subsidence; widespread volcanic activity
Eocene 54.9. Mountain formation and glaciation
Oligocene 38. Sea levels fall; new mountains form
Miocene 24.6. Sea levels continue to
fall; mountains erode
Pliocene 5.1. Continents near their present positions

Quartenary Period

Pleistocene 2. Glaciation and melt affect sea levels
Holocene 0.01. Glaciers recede; our world emerges

*All dates given in millions of years.

Here's Jerseydevil's link on African climate changes:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/14/25.html
Here's the link to the article I was getting my information from:
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/perso...hange_on_ca.htm

Other information I got from the World Book.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Jonathan
And evolution exists. Now, you might say that it's impossible to prove evolution, but there is always micro-evolution to look at. Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. You can see that right under your microscope.

Not only micro-evolution has been proved. Some animals have undergone fast evolution, like the Drosophila fly, which Lief Erikson mentioned.
It's easier to prove evolution amongst smaller life forms like bacteria and insects, simply because they breed faster than bigger animals. There is less time between the generations and mutations occur more often.
This doesn't mean that human evolution can't be proved, because it already has. I will give an example:
2000 years ago, the Jews in Israel were exiled by the Romans. The Jews then spread over the world to Europe, to Africa etc.

Some of the Jews mixed with the population in their new countries. But many of them didn't, they prefered only to have children with other Jews. Therefore, no new genes from the native population were added to the Jewish decendants.
2000 years later, the Jews in Africa have evolved black skin to adapt to the sunny Africa. The Jews in Europe didn't need to evolve black skin since the sunlight is weaker there.
Genetic tests show that the African Jews haven't mixed with the other Africans during the 2000 years. However, the test shows that they are more related to the European Jews than they are to any other people on earth, genetically speaking.
The African Jews, who developped genes that could make them more resistant to the African sun, survived to a greater extent than those who didn't develop these kind of genes. According to the theory of evolution, the African Jews evolved black skin.


I've said it before and I say it again: The theory of evolution should be taught at school. It isn't balsphemy or anything to at least learn what the theory is about.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Here's Jerseydevil's link on African climate changes:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/14/25.html
Here's the link to the article I was getting my information from:
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/perso...hange_on_ca.htm

One of the links doesn't work. The other I already checked out - it's where I got the 1500 year cycle figure from (and referenced at the bottom of my post). Again, I can only reiterate that this information is quite old, and there appears to be only the two sources advocating this.

[samwiselvr2008]

I looked for a website on how evolution is a religion, but I couldn't find one, and for some reason I must have deleated all of the ones saved to my favorites folder, because they arn't there. Could anyone please help me out by eather explaining it or giving a link to website for HOBBIT and anyone else who needs it? Thanks .

Let me draw a parallell to the ideology of the Nazis. I think everyone agrees that the kids in school should be taught what the Nazis believed in. Just because the Nazi ideology is "wrong", one shouldn't neglect teaching what it is about.

But unless I am making a mistake to think/say this, the Nazis had no real beleaf in how the earth was created/evolved, right?

Rian, could I sher that PM you sent me a while back? You still haven't said if I could or not, unless I missed it. If you did say yes (or no) then please say it again, but pute it in deeppink or another bright color so that I will notice it.

[HOBBIT]

Sam, I believe that the Nazis believed in some type of christianity. That quote though was making a parallell - it doesnt have to do with their ideas on creation or evolution.



Let me repost seomthing i also included in my recent long posts in the religion topic:

*SOMEONE in this topic* has said that evolution should not be taught in schools because it will confuse little kids - telling them as FACT that evolution is true and creation is not. How is this any different from when they are born ppl telling them that god is FACT and being taught it in church/temple and religious school. Who gave them a choice to believe??? No one. When presented with a better idea - kids with QUESTION their religion. They will assess WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE for themselves. Many today choose evolution. Are you really that afraid that after THINKING more will choose evolution?