Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
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?

You're completely missing what I'm trying to say here.

And I agree with HOBBIT. The children should have the chance of choosing for themselves. Therefore, they must learn about both their religion AND evolution. If they are not taught in school about evolution, they can't make a choice of whether or not they should believe in it.
Of course, they could combine their faith and believing in the theory of evolution, if they'd like.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by 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:

Rian 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?

How about the kids that don't go to church? Could we invite a preacher in for them? Was if what you say happens, and they only hear about evolution? Then they only hear one part. Because of this, I would like to repeate, "teach all or nothing" and saying what I am, I think that if an evolutionist is aloud to teach evolution (my science teacher is an evolutionist, but even if not an evolutionist, I still say...) that you should also teach the other major religions. But I still need to explain how/why evolution is a religion, so this might be pountless untill then.

I still don't see how this parellel is supposed to make a point! Arn't we also tought the "right" side of the thing? Oh well, try to explain it to me please!

Edit: Sorry about that, I was typing this when ^ typed what he did. I still don't understand the parellel though, please try again. And read the other part of my post.

[HOBBIT]

Sam, do you spell like that on purpose? Not like I am the world's greatest speller, (should have seen me on the board years ago) but I have improved greatly. I cringe when I read some of your spellings for common words, sorry - no offense.

Kids that are not taught about creation are missing out - agreed. They should choose. BUT creation should not be taught in science class alongside evolution - for it is not science. Bible studies class sure - but there is no such thing in most schools. Closest thing is history - but where would you fit that in in? Surely not at the beginning as a possible fact for how we started. I took world history this year - the book started with hominids, not adam and eve.

Evolution is taught in history class though. If not the theory itself, the impact it had on the world. There is a small section on how Darwin's theory impacted the world GREATLY and how people reasoned that it applied socially too - hence Social Darwinism and "survival of the fittest."

[Jonathan]

Ok, here's the parallell. Like the theory of evolution (which is NOT a religion, I'll come to that later) the Nazi ideologi is considered "wrong" by many.
However, the people who are not Nazis still want their kids to learn about the ideology. It's important to know what the Nazis believed in and what they did.
Now, there are many peoples who don't believe in the theory of evolution. But shouldn't they, like the non-Nazis, want their kids to learn what evolution is about?

You see my parallell now?


And why is evolution not a religion? Well, religion is so much more than just God and how everything was created. It's about ethics and morale too.
Evolution is science. Not even the Social Darwinism could be considered a religion. It's an ideology, like communism or capitalism. It is an idea of how to govern, it's not at all a religion.

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry, Sheeana. Here's the link (Hope it works this time ).
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/person...ange_on_ca.htm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
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.

So others have pointed out. Not knowing enough about the dating methods myself, I cannot comment. I do know that fast evolution has been proved to occur. Whether it is responsible for all evolution or not is open to discussion, and it is my opinion that it is, based upon the swiftly changing environment. We have observed that creatures change quickly to adapt to their environment. Jonathon pointed out, quite correctly (IMO) that in the case of some Jews moved to Africa, they gave birth to children whose skin turned black, because of the environment. The Burmingham Moth turned black because of pollution, so that it could survive as a species. The Drosophila fly's offspring sprouted another set of wings, because of the new environment. Bacteria and viruses are constantly changing, often directly because they are attacked by new medical research. The Peppered Moth is another example. Many pests and insects have adapting swiftly to changes in environment or predators since the 1800s, because of human technological advances affecting the environment.

The Worldbook and these research papers confirm that environment changes extremely rapidly.

Heck, as jerseydevil pointed out earlier, examples of this are extremely easy to find, if you don't accept the major scale ones. Take forest fires, or prairie fires, or floods. They might not have much to do with aridity of climate, but it cannot be denied that life is capable of springing up extremely quickly.

I know those are small scale changes, but all I'm demonstrating is that the environment, through natural causes, does repair itself very quickly.

The pollen dating merely shows us some transformations occuring on a far larger scale. In Africa, huge climate changes that affected the aridity of the terrain. In the Sahara-Gobi desert stretches, huge transformations back and forth within 120,000 years.

There is material in The World Book on those changes as well as the article I posted.

It's true that I'm extrapolating, in one major area. That is in the rapidly changing environment. I believe that because of what we have found regarding these huge changes, the same goes for basically all the time of the Earth's existence. I can't see any major historical event that would cause environment to change in such dramatic ways, out of order with the way it naturally behaves.

So my extrapolation is that these changes have not only all happened within the last 120,000 years, but also have been happening for far further back in history.

Originally posted by Cirdan
...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.

Cirdan, you misunderstand me .

Originally written in the World Book
More recent fossils disclose a variety of species with increasingly complex adaptations. Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development. Scientists have found fossils that show many stages in the evolution of the horse.

If I was trying to disprove the continuity of animals, I certainly wouldn't choose the horse .

But actually, there are a lot of fossils to the same or very similar species. I'll do some research soon, to see both distribution and amounts. Thanks for getting me started on that though, it is high time I got a bit more information together.

Thanks for sending the response you did .

[Rían]

Originally posted by Jonathan
.... According to the theory of evolution, the African Jews evolved black skin....

Sheeana, is this a misuse of the word "evolved", in your opinion? I would say this demonstrates natural selection; it doesn't demonstrate "evolving". What's your opinion?

[Rían]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
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.

You missed it! I asked if you could please PM it back to me first, because I think I had put some rather personal things in it, and I'd like to look it thru first. Please PM me if you would prefer to email it, and I'll PM you my email address

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Sorry, Sheeana. Here's the link (Hope it works this time ).
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/person...ange_on_ca.htm

Thanks. Reading this article just backs up what I said in my longer exposition on this though - that the aridity is relatively new, and that it occured mid-Holocene, and that the sub-tropical jungles belonged to an earlier epoch, not the Holocene.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sam, do you spell like that on purpose? Not like I am the world's greatest speller, (should have seen me on the board years ago) but I have improved greatly.

She has tried very, very hard to improve, but it just seems like this will not ever be a good area for her. But she does her best, and we like her anyway and like to hear her opinions.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
....Rian has said that evolution should not be taught in schools ....

*SIGH!*
Hobbit, I defy you to produce a quote where I said that! because I certainly don't believe that!! You just probably think I do, because of some other beliefs that I have (you know, the ones where I"m right and you're wrong.... )

I absolutely think the theory of evolution should be taught in schools!!! What I object to is when the word "theory" is dropped, either outright or by inference. The theory of evolution is a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!! The theory of creation by intelligent design is also a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!!

And THAT is my position

[Coney]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
She has tried very, very hard to improve,

She does and the improvment in the last year or so has been amazing

Good on yer Sam

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Sheeana, is this a misuse of the word "evolved", in your opinion? I would say this demonstrates natural selection; it doesn't demonstrate "evolving". What's your opinion?

I would partially agree. Evolution is an ongoing process - the whole of which natural selection is a part: it is basically a history of biological development. Granted, "evolved" wasn't the best word he could have used - "selected for" would have been more appropriate, but he was not strictly wrong in using it either, because to evolve is to undergo change.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
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 . . .

Lief, I'm going to choose to not post in this thread much, I'd rather apply my v. limited energy to some other areas at this point, so I'll just try to v. briefly say that I am ONLY talking about the theory of evolution which is popularly taught and "known", which, if you ask people about it, they would say that there is no God behind it anywhere at all. If you want to put God "secretly" behind the theory of evolution as driving or directing chance, that's a whole different matter (and another one I don't care to get into at this time ).

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
What I object to is when the word "theory" is dropped, either outright or by inference.

As you know, I did my degree in Anthropology at University, and you'll be gratified to know that "theory" was never once dropped from Evolution. It would not be considered particularly scientific if it was!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
I would partially agree. Evolution is an ongoing process - the whole of which natural selection is a part: it is basically a history of biological development. Granted, "evolved" wasn't the best word he could have used - "selected for" would have been more appropriate, but he was not strictly wrong in using it either, because to evolve is to undergo change.

Thanks, Sheeana, I appreciate your opinion, as you have much more training in this area than I have had.

If you wouldn't mind, how would you define macro and micro evolution? I've heard those terms, and I've also used them, but I never really looked up an "official" definition *bops self on head*. Are those terms that are appropriate today?

Also, my understanding for "selected for" or natural selection is that a certain configuration becomes more prevalent because of environmental and other issues; however, the characteristics that are being SELECTED BETWEEN are ALREADY PRESENT in the gene pool; is that roughly right?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
As you know, I did my degree in Anthropology at University, and you'll be gratified to know that "theory" was never once dropped from Evolution. It would not be considered particularly scientific if it was!

Oh, I know it was never "officially" dropped. And I agree, it would not be particularly scientific to drop it!

It is, however, commonly dropped, both outright (as in not spoken outloud - people talk about evolution, not the theory of evolution) and, as I said, by inference (perhaps not the right word, but when teachers say things like "evolution is now a well-known fact", or "all really significant scientists believe that evolution has been basically completely verified", or things like that).

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*SIGH!*
Hobbit, I defy you to produce a quote where I said that! because I certainly don't believe that!! You just probably think I do, because of some other beliefs that I have (you know, the ones where I"m right and you're wrong.... )

I absolutely think the theory of evolution should be taught in schools!!! What I object to is when the word "theory" is dropped, either outright or by inference. The theory of evolution is a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!! The theory of creation by intelligent design is also a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!!

And THAT is my position

Sorry - i did not quote you. And I did not say that just because of your beliefs. I think i missed your first few posts in this topic - i did not see any posts of yours in this topic saying that evolution should be taught in schools. From all the many posts I read of yours in this topic, it seems like you are VERY (you even suggested in one topic that evolution NOT be taught in schools if creation is not taught right next to it in the science classroom, also that it can not be proven, complete belief, etc - unless that was some other RÃ*an) against evolution and favor creation. My apologies. You are rational after all :P I'm glad that you do see it as science and it therefore should be taught in school

Well - it is presented just like any other scientific theory in science text books.

Also, that was just my opening sentence. I was mostly replying to something else you said. Was it you who said something like the problem with it being taught in school was that it went against creation and they don't know what to believe. What about what I said about that?

Also, will you reply to my long ramblings in the offshoot topic? Some of my ideas make no sense, and others make a lot of sense. I'd appreciate some rational logical replies showing how silly I am (if im wrong that is).

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sorry - i did not quote you.

You sure didn't, buster, because I never wrote that!!

You just said "Rian has said that evolution should not be taught in schools", and I just really object when people say things like that that are untrue

And I did not say that just because of your beliefs. I think i missed your first few posts in this topic - i did not see any posts of yours in this topic saying that evolution should be taught in schools.

I haven't said that in THIS go-round But I did in the last, many pages back. But I just objected to that opinion being assigned to me, when I HADN'T said it (IOW, please don't fill in my silences).

From all the many posts I read of yours in this topic, it seems like you are VERY (you even suggested in one topic that evolution NOT be taught in schools if creation is not taught right next to it in the science classroom, also that it can not be proven, complete belief, etc - unless that was some other RÃ*an) against evolution and favor creation. My apologies. You are rational after all :P I'm glad that you do see it as science and it therefore should be taught in school

I think if you read all my posts on the matter (like you have time!!! RIGHT!!!) you would see my basic opinion is there are 2 intelligent theories out there, ev. and CBID, and both are believed by many intelligent scientists for good reasons, and both should be taught. There's other side issues, too, but that's my basic opinion on the thread topic. I may have stated that opinion in the way you worded it, (ev. shouldn't be taught unless BOTH are taught), I don't remember, but that's a HUGE difference.

Was it you who said something like the problem with it being taught in school was that it went against creation and they don't know what to believe. What about what I said about that?

No, it wasn't me!!!

Also, will you reply to my long ramblings in the offshoot topic? Some of my ideas make no sense, and others make a lot of sense. I'd appreciate some rational logical replies showing how silly I am (if im wrong that is).

I'd be glad to, but have you read my posts about my visiting in-laws? I'm typing furiously right now, because I have to leave in about 1 minute, but I will indeed get to your posts. You have some intelligent opinions, from what I've read, and I would enjoy discussing things with you, but realistically it's going to be next week......

GTG!! bye.. rats, had to type so fast, I hope this makes sense....

[Sheeana]

Just thought I should pull this up: what you should know about Peppered and Birmingham moths is that there was also an intermediary species as well, ie there were THREE types, not two.

• 3. Case 2: H.B.D. Kettlewell
  
  Another favorite textbook icon is the peppered moth, which evolved during Britain's industrial revolution. The popular images of the moths against different backgrounds epitomizes the classic study by Bernard Kettlewell, contrasting survival in polluted versus rural forests. Many biology texts describe-and typically celebrate-the elegant design of these experiments. Recent accounts have sought to update the science (Majerus 1998; Rudge 2000). Here, I am concerned primarily with how the story is told.
  
  Again, the history contrasts sharply with the canonical classroom image (Allchin 2001a). First, Kettlewell's monograph, The Evolution of Melanism, plainly shows that in addition to the familiar dark and "peppered" forms, there is a series of intermediates, known as insularia (1973, plate 9.1). The range of coloration in insularia indicates greater complexity. One easily finds such specimens, Kettlewell noted, in museum collections. -And he included them in his own field studies. Having recruited observers from around Britain, Kettlewell catalogued the relative frequency of the three forms in various locations. The incidence of insularia was sometimes as high as 40% or more (Kettlewell, 1973, pp. 134-36). Insularia was no trivial exception. Still, while Kettlewell documented insularia in his research, it became eclipsed in subsequent renditions of his work.

Note: Intermediate isn't being used in the sense that you are using in your fast evolution theory.