Should evolution be taught in schools?

[HOBBIT]

In my opinion your opinion is wrong - ha :P

[Giroth]

gwaimir;I see your point.At least you can give a good point,unlike someone else I know.......J/KLOL

HOBBIT,that means nothing to me;your opinion is neither right nor wrong

And in return,In my opinion,your more stubborn than my dad,
and YOUR opinion is wrong;


but remember....it means nothing.........


~Giroth

[Gwaimir Windgem]

In my opinion your opinion is wrong - ha :P

What, you don't think a Christian can believe in divine evolution?

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
What, you don't think a Christian can believe in divine evolution?

no, i was refering to giroth.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I know, I was joking.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Ah, but he's talking about physical, reproducable evidence. Not what is written in the bible.

Of course, Ruinel! I realize that!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
By the way, the theory of evolution does not encompasses how the universe was created.

In your opinion, does it include how life came about?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Giroth
[B:
graymouser,


Think this way;if everything just sort of popped from evolution,does that mean everything just happened by chance?We live here for nothing,simply to live out our lives then die?say for example,the earth was created inthe big bang thing,but what triggered the big bang theory?if we evolved from monkies,the monkies evolved from amoebas,what did the amoebas evolve from,and so on and so on?
It doesn't all add up.

~Giroth [/B]

Giroth, I'm glad to hear you're learning more about evolution, even if you're not convinced- more knowledge is always a good thing, and after all, the first principle of war is to know your enemy.

First, evolution does not mean everything happened by chance- it's the interplay of chance and natural selection.

Do we live here for nothing? I don't know, and either way it is a philosophical/religious question that has nothing to do with the scientific arguments for the theory of evolution.

You have to keep things straight. The Earth was not created in the Big Bang, the entire Universe was. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago: the Big Bang happened about 15 billion years ago.

As to what triggered the Big Bang, there you're getting into cutting edge aspects of string theory, brane hypotheses, multiple universes, virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations; all that very weird cosmological stuff that is way beyond me- I've just read some popular articles. I can supply some links to the latest ideas, if anyone is interested.

We didn't evolve from monkeys, any more than you are descended from your cousin- we share a common ancestry, as does all life on Earth.

As to how life originally started, it's still an open question- people are working on it, but it's entirely possible that we'll never know for sure- as opposed to being able to form some pretty likely possible scenarios.

That's the thing about science -it can't promise you all the answers, it can only show you what we've got so far and offer a methodology for continuing the search.

As Nietszche said, "If you seek comfort, then believe; if you seek truth, then inquire."

[Giroth]

very true:good to seek knowledge.I'm glad to see someone answer maturely here again.

I understand where your coming from,though.Even though I'm still not convinced,I see your reasoning.


You know,HOBBIT,if you didn't always just argue with me about the whole matter and take it like Graymouser,then maybe you could get your point across better.

Good for us ALL to know,maybe...


~Giroth

[HOBBIT]

I was going to just ignore you but I'll comment on that. Just because I don't agree with you I'm not "answering you maturely? "
Of course, all your posts are at the pinacle of maturity:P
I guess you do not understand this, but I am not just disagreeing with everything you say for the sake of disagreeing with you - if you said something reasonable I would agree with you.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I doubt it. I consider divine evolution to be a completely reasonable concept, and if one sets aside the possibility of God, atheistic evolution is quite reasonable as well. But I don't agree with either.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
... a completely reasonable concept, and if one sets aside the possibility of God, atheistic evolution is quite reasonable as well. ....

WWWOOOOOOHHHHHHOOOOOOO!!!!!!! We have a convert!!!!!

[Giroth]

HOBBIT,i said in my post that it was good for ALL of us to remember...........*sigh

It's not the disagreeing thing that made me say the maturity thing.It was exactly what you JUST did.........insults,and things of that sort."of course,your messages are at the pinacle of maturity"

that is not any good.I am not insulting you or anything like that.Graimir disagreed with me;but just explained why,without telling me how wrong I was and all that.Refrain from the insults and smarty comments,and just resolve to reasoning and stuff like that only.Same for me

~Giroth

[Rían]

OK - 3 end-of-school pool parties Monday, 2 graduations Tuesday, and now our family is done with school for now! - and now I'm ready to provide some evidence for creationism

I've been asked by some people on this thread to provide some scientific evidence for creationism, and I've seen evolutionists on this thread say they're willing to listen and consider. And I'd like to open with the following: I've been on Entmoot for almost a year now, and I have well over 2000 posts . I would hope that those of you that have read my posts would say that even if you don't agree with them, you can see that I've put time and thought into them. So I would like to ask for a moratorium on sarcasm and rolling eye smilies and things like that, and ask that instead you would politely, logically and (when appropriate) scientifically consider and discuss what I present here. Would you please? I can only ask, but I hope you guys will honor my request

So, I wanted to start by getting an agreed-upon wording of the question that I think both evolutionism and creationism are trying to answer. I would say it's basically the following: How did what we can observe around us arrive at its current state?

Is that ok, or would anyone like to offer another wording? I'd especially like to hear from the evolutionists.

[Baby-K]

So I would like to ask for a moratorium on sarcasm and rolling eye smilies and things like that, and ask that instead you would politely, logically and (when appropriate) scientifically consider and discuss what I present here. Would you please? I can only ask, but I hope you guys will honor my request

I'd respect that (I hate when the good discussions start turning into wars to see who can be the most insulting without being banned)

So, I wanted to start by getting an agreed-upon wording of the question that I think both evolutionism and creationism are trying to answer. I would say it's basically the following: How did what we can observe around us arrive at its current state?

Is this an offshoot of the original question? I thought it was about whether or not evolution should be taught in schools. Perhaps not as replacement for religion, but as another alternative?

I'm just wondering why this thread has turned into a religious debate. The two words that stood out for me in the title was EVOLUTION and SCHOOL, thus leading me to think that school policies would be discussed & whether or not evolution as a school subject would have the same merit as maths or any other subject. After all no-one disputes the validity of geology, archeology, entimology and all the other -ologies (all of which IMO to some extent support evolutionist theories), thus why question evolution as subject matter? Why would people necessarily believe that teaching evolution would be a replacement of religious teachings? I know in the US religion is mostly not taught at government schools, but why should evolution not be taught, after all evolutionism is not regarded as a religious movement, but rather that of scientific discovery.

We teach people everyday that social reform is necessary to develop lasting relationships, create world peace etc - what is that other than social evolution & if that is taught in sociology & psychology (all the Human Science classes), why would another branch of evolution necessarily have to be excluded?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Baby-K
Is this an offshoot of the original question?

It's a response to requests from some people to provide some scientific evidence for creationism. The evaluation of the theories, both evolutionism and creationism, should have nothing to do with religion, IMO.

Hobbit said it was OK for me to share some evidence for creationism, and several people have asked for it, but he might want to reconsider.... what's the consensus? Should we start another thread? Or since it is obviously a related sub-topic, should we keep it here?

After all no-one disputes the validity of geology, archeology, entimology and all the other -ologies (all of which IMO to some extent support evolutionist theories), thus why question evolution as subject matter?

Because it doesn't end in "ology"! And those "ologies" also (and to a greater extend, IMO) support creationism, BTW.

Why would people necessarily believe that teaching evolution would be a replacement of religious teachings? I know in the US religion is mostly not taught at government schools, but why should evolution not be taught, after all evolutionism is not regarded as a religious movement, but rather that of scientific discovery.

I think evolution should be taught, as well as creation by intelligent design.

[Sheeana]

Well, this seems as good a place as any. Looks like we've found another ancestor - this one is supposed to be the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens sapiens, and has pretty much given us conclusive proof that sapiens evolved out of Africa, and not multi-regionally. This is HUGE.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...1_idaltu.shtml

[Baby-K]

Sheeana - thanks for the link, damned interesting

My goodness - the paradox of it is quite fantastic really - humans migrated from Africa to the rest of the world - solid mass of land split into continents - societies adapt at their own pace, to an extent unaware of each other - people become greedy (for knowledge & riches) & face existential crises - exploration & discovering of 'new' places - enslavement of people from Africa to buid the new world (hence the paradox - in actuality they were enslaving their ancestors ) - treating Africans as lesser beings etc etc etc - can become quite endless & Niezche could have a field day & in the end prove that the human race do not actually exist.

[Sheeana]

Well, the out of Africa thing only occured around 150,000 BP (rise of sapiens sapiens), so the continent splitting occured well before that.

[Baby-K]

nitpicker