Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, I do not think they are liars, but have a conflict of interest in a manner of speaking.

The same applies to many atheists. I don't see why people always accuse creationist (or "Christian" in any remotely traditional sense) of twisting the facts to fit his own belief, but atheists are exempt of this?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Don't keep your mind so open that your brains fall out.

I hear ya, and couldn't agree more.

[Sheeana]

Science is not perfect. The fact of the matter is that atheist/agnostic scientists can have just as much of an agenda as religious scientists. I guess I'm pretty cynical, but the reality is that science is driven by agendas, and if you don't believe me, go on down and visit your local uni, and witness the petty rivalry between the researchers, professors, etc. We all have agendas - to presume that religion is the only one is somewhat erroneous.

[afro-elf]

I don't deny that Shee-Bop,

However, the FACT that when I flip the switch my lights come on is independent to of my belief.

[jerseydevil]

As Hobbit said - religious schools here teach evolution. I went to three Catholic schools - all of them taught evolution.

And yes - New Jersey, as well as the northeast, is more enlightened than the southern, midwestern and prairie states.

GW- I am glad that you have seen that the world is a lot more. I am surprised you didn't know about Wicca though

As for atheists leaving their beliefs at the door - all scientists should leave their beliefs at the door. But as I said - god and the belief has nothing to do with science. You can not say that someone must have created the world because you don't understand how it is possible without a supernatural being. Intelligent Design is just evolution with a supernatural being thrown in to satisfy the creationists and try getting it taught in school. I haven't read anything here that would indicate otherwise.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
GW- I am glad that you have seen that the world is a lot more. I am surprised you didn't know about Wicca though

Well, I might have known about it, I'm not sure. But I know a heckuva lot more about it now, that's for sure.

As for atheists leaving their beliefs at the door - all scientists should leave their beliefs at the door. But as I said - god and the belief has nothing to do with science.

Just as God and the lack of belief...or rather belief against...has nothing to di with science.

Intelligent Design is just evolution with a supernatural being thrown in to satisfy the creationists and try getting it taught in school. I haven't read anything here that would indicate otherwise.

What you refer to is what I call Divine Evolution; Intelligent Design is generally special creation.

[afro-elf]

oops edit

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, I might have known about it, I'm not sure. But I know a heckuva lot more about it now, that's for sure.

What you refer to is what I call Divine Evolution; Intelligent Design is generally special creation.

Gwaimir is making a good point here; you have to keep the terminology straight. Divine (or Theological ) Evolution is the belief that Evolution happens, but that it is directed, either by setting initial conditions or later interventions.

He's also right that all scientists ahould leave their religious convictions or lack thereof at the laboratory door; many scientists have religious faith, many don't.

As for the "some biologists believe in evolution, some in creation" it's the equivalent of saying some biologists believe infectious diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses, while others believe they are caused by evil spirits. What's the proportion?

And of course, while the majority is not always right, neither are the minorities.

Just because Galileo was attacked, doesn't mean everyone who's attacked is Galileo.

[afro-elf]

Just because Galileo was attacked, doesn't mean everyone who's attacked is Galileo.

Or they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

[Anglorfin]

So should we teach both evolution and creationism and let the pupil decide what is more to their liking? That sounds the fairest. Or is it the school's responsibility to only teach evolution and let the students learn creationism through strictly religious interactions?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]GrayMouser's most recent post -
I'm pretty sure I said "complex", too, which makes a big difference. And what I mean by "fully formed" is that wings are wings, feathers are feathers, etc.


Now this is where we could get into a link war (a polite one, of course ). From what I've read, I strongly disagree with Archeopteryx being transitional, since (1) the feathers are perfectly formed feathers, not semi-gill-semi-feathers, (2) there are other living birds today, like the ostrich, that have claws on their wings, (3) the wings are not semi-legs-semi-wings, they are completely developed and fully functional wings.

Also, there are some bird bones discovered in layers "deeper" than those that contain Arch. remains, so Arch. can't be an ancestor of birds, because birds already existed, acc'd to evolutionary dating methods.

So I would say as it stands, Arch. does NOT exhibit any leg-to-wing transitional forms, nor does it exhibit any gill-to-feather transitional forms. Both wings and feathers are the same as modern bird types. It IS, however, one of those not-run-of-the-mill birds, like ostriches.

I think many evolutionists have discarded Arch. as a transitional type, but I could be wrong. Do you want to look into it more and get back to me, or should we just leave it at "evolutionist PhDs say Arch. IS a transitional type, and creationist PhDs say it ISN'T, so it must be inconclusive, assuming integrity on both sides."

B]

I can't honestly claim to know more about bird morphology than is necessary to carve a Thanksgiving turkey but:

Yes Arch. has fully-formed feathers (shouldn't that be scale-to-feather transitions? Discoveries in the last few years show that feathers originated before flight, though the feathers on non-flying dinosaurs were symmetrical, unlike flight feathers.

The wings of ARCH. were not fully functional wings ( compared to modern birds)

And the claws on ostriches and others ( the Hoatzoan ) are neotonous i.e. juvenile features carried into adulthood by slowed development

No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says:

"In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds."

Teeth, tail bones and no beak,among many others.

It can be seen that Archae possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archae is a true transitional species, because it shares some characters which are diagnostic of one group whilst still retaining characters diagnostic of its ancestral group. Anyone who claims that Archae is 100% bird is wrong. Anyone who claims that Archae's skeleton is even predominantly bird- like is wrong. Anyone who claims Archae has a "totally birdlike" skull is wrong.

This latter point is made in reference to the claim by Dr. Duane Gish that the skull of Archae is "totally birdlike" (R. Trott pers. comm. 1994). This claim is false.

No, other than in Creationist tracts, Arch is fully recognised as a transitional form( not ancestral, there's a difference).

As far as evolutionist PhDs vs. Creationist PhDs, the difference is that the evolutionist Phds are in the fields that are in question (i.e. avian morphology, paleontology, etc) while the creationists are in other fields entirely.

It may be unfair, but the people searching for, analysing and comparing the actual fossils are evolutionists, just like the people scanning the heavens are believers in the Big Bang- that's their job.

quotes are from Talkorigins; Archeopteryx, but a Google search will find many more.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And for GrayMouser re the horse -

Same with the horse example, BTW - creationists point out other fossil finds that contradict this order, such as the South American ungulates (order Litopterna) - there is a three-toed hoofed ungulate (Macrauchenia), a three-toed hoofed ungulate with reduced laterals (Diadiaphorus), and a one-toed hoofed ungulate (Thoatherium) with reduced splints, just like the Eohippus-Miohippus-Equus. However, the two latter were contemporaries, and the three-toed Macrauchenia appeared AFTER the last two, acc'd to evolutionary dating!

There's also a place in Oregon where the three-toed versions are found WITH the one-toed versions.

Also, altho one could see a possible Eohippus to Equus change, the transitions are NOT in the fossil record - they are said to have happened too rapidly. Well, that's an assumption, then, not backed up by what is actually IN the fossil record. Assumptions are fine, but they should be called assumptions.

(and for your reference - info on the horse in this post is from Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane Gish)

Uhoh, here we go with the quotes again!

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Talkorigins: horse, evolution of

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Anglorfin
So should we teach both evolution and creationism and let the pupil decide what is more to their liking? That sounds the fairest. Or is it the school's responsibility to only teach evolution and let the students learn creationism through strictly religious interactions?

It sounds fair but it is rediculous. You do get that creation is only a belief and not a scientific theory, right? And also, public schools could not even teach creation because of seaparation of church and state.

It is the school's responsibility NOT to teach creation. Evolution is in the ciriculum of many science courses, and history courses (social darwinism), and english (we read "Inherit the Wind" this year, the play based on the Scopes or "Monkey Trial"


Just because you believe it does not make it true OR a scientific theory. You could say the same to me - but evolution is a scientific theory.... *sigh* It is a scientific FACT that evolution exists. Do you guys know what a scientific fact is? AFro-Elf gave us all a very nice definition of it, and he is correct.

Hmm since Creation is completely based in religion, of course it is his/her parent's concern how much they want to teach their kid - through church/temple or/and religious school (after school and/or on weekends if not private school)

Anglorfin, how is this even an issue?

Creation being taught in science classes is just so laughable it isn't even funny. Especially in this area of the US, can you imagine the lawsuits and the HUGE amount of kids switching to being homeschooled or private schools? It would be completely unconstitutional.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Creation being taught in science classes is just so laughable it isn't even funny.

Yeah, imagine, actually offering an ALTERNATIVE to evolution!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yeah, imagine, actually offering an ALTERNATIVE to evolution!

Yes, maybe we need alternate theories for gravity, atomic theory, etc as well?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Obviously, you should teach that people fall because little faerie pull them to the ground, and that everything is made up of tiny legos!

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Obviously, you should teach that people fall because little faerie pull them to the ground, and that everything is made up of tiny legos!

thats about the equivalent of creation being taught as an alternate scientific theory to evolution. good anology GW

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yeah, imagine, actually offering an ALTERNATIVE to evolution!

Why teach an alternative - when the prevailing wisdom and science supports evolution. As Cirdan said - why not have alternatives for everything? Hell - let's just make it easy on all the students and just teach Adam and Eve - then we can all happily stay in the dark ages.

Whether you like it or not - science supports evolution - it does not give any evidence or proof to creationism (except people's belief). People can go to Sunday school to learn about creationism. Creationism doesn't belong in public schools - because it relies on a god and god is a belief. Would you be willing to only have Indian (Native American) creationist story? Why don't we teach the creationist story as it appears in Watership Down while we're at it - that's "Intelligent Design" in there.

[GrayMouser]

For increasing complexity in the fossil record;

Archaean : The first few billion years, simple one-celled organisms without a nucleus, the prokaryotic cells.

Protoerozoic: Next stage, appearances of eukaryotic one-celled organisms possessing nuclei.

Ediacarian (670 million years ago [mya] ) ; first multi-celled animals

However, it is becoming clear that the Ediacara fauna can be divided into separate assemblages, with the most diverse and disparate (variation in bodyplan) occurring at the highest (youngest) levels. So while the Ediacaran fauna tends to emerge into the taphonomic spotlight with very little fanfare, the earliest appearances have relatively low disparity.

(This is from my post on p.57, but I messed up the quote function.)

The life-forms from this period range from sponges, coelenterates, flatworms, roundworms to (maybe) molluscs and arthropods.

Then with the Cambrian comes the trilobites, brachiopods etc.

But- no chordates , much less vertebrates; no life on land.

So, yes, the fossil record has a well-established gradation from simple to more complex.

Again, the YEC fossil record should show no sorting by age- there shouldn't be a recognisable "Cambrian system" or "trilobite age/zone"

It should be impossible to take a fossil such as a trilobite and say that this came from a lower level of rock than a fish or a dinosaur or a mammoth.

The geologic column shouldn't exist- and yet it was discovered by avowed creationists decades before Darwin.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
thats about the equivalent of creation being taught as an alternate scientific theory to evolution. good anology GW

I knew as soon as I said that that it would be misinterpreted.

Why teach an alternative - when the prevailing wisdom and science supports evolution.

So, because the majority of scientists operate on the premise that evolution is accurate, it automatically is?

Whether you like it or not - science supports evolution - it does not give any evidence or proof to creationism (except people's belief).

Whether you like it or not - science merely provides evidence. This evidence can be used to support pretty well any belief.

People can go to Sunday school to learn about creationism.

The vast majority of people have to go the public school and have evolution shoved down their throats. If creationism were taught in schools,

Creationism doesn't belong in public schools - because it relies on a god and god is a belief.

No, it does not. There are numerous possibilities for creationism; God is the most commonly believed one, but it does not rely on a god any more than evolution relies on atheism.

Would you be willing to only have Indian (Native American) creationist story?

Certainly; it wouldn't apply to as many people, and of course I don't know which specific NA creation myth would be used to represent Native American beliefs, but I'd have no problem with it. The actual myth would just be for a bit of background, telling why creation theory is studied. But by no means would I have a problem with it, as long as it was specified that there were many, many creation beliefs in the world, and this was only one; the same thing applies applies to the six-day-Adam-and-Eve myth.

maybe I'm not the intolerant "Christianity-is-the-only-belief-that-should-be-taught" bastard you thought