Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 11:01am

09philj

09philj

1,126 posts

Schools should teach both and show both points of view fairly. then the children can work out for themselves which seems more logical.

 

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 11:54am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

Schools should teach both and show both points of view fairly. then the children can work out for themselves which seems more logical.

As I said before, creationism and its ilk is for church, school is for learning and seeking the truth. Creationism belongs in theology class and nothing else. If you do not want your beliefs questioned, don't send your child to school.

 

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 12:12pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Amen sister

Sister?

Schools should teach both and show both points of view fairly. then the children can work out for themselves which seems more logical.

It's not a question of teaching "both point of views" as those are not even the two "choices." Creationism is not science. There are many more religious explanations of how the world was made than one version of Creationism.

 

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 1:26pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

Sister?

Without the ranks (lord/lady, duke/dutchess, prince/princess, king/queen) or anything on the Abouts (X is a male/female), it's hard to tell gender, other than by guessing based on name.

 

Posted Jan 23, '13 at 10:54pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Here's a small sample of what would go into a class that would be forced to teach unfounded creation myths along side science.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/19197_421774087897082_855806900_n.jpg

 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 12:36am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,607 posts

Here's a small sample of what would go into a class that would be forced to teach unfounded creation myths along side science.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p176/blizzy1/image_zps7521c67f.jpg

"Science" is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Science is based on creating theories after observing and experimenting. No one has ever seen the creation of the universe and it has never been recorded, documented or recreated in an experiment. If it cannot be observed and proved, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC.

A very basic description of the beginning of the Big Bang is that, 13.75 billion years ago, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. There was no source of heat or density because nothing existed. Atrophy shows that the universe is in a declining state and is losing energy. The universe and everything therein cannot have existed forever, so it must have had a starting point. Science can provide no natural explanation for the creation of anything from nothing. That was called "spontaneous generation," and it was disproved in 1859 by Louis Pasteur. This alone negates the possibility of organic life coming from inorganic material.

On top of that, why is the theory called "The Big Bang?" Sound does not travel in the vacuum of space. It would have been a silent explosion of (literally) unmeasurable proportions that happened in a way that cannot be recreated.

With all its advances, science has not found a way to explain how the universe was created and how life came to be, outside of "random chance," which is NOT scientific.

 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 12:43am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,607 posts

Sorry, I misused "atrophy." I meant "entropy"

Actually, replace it with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy (the natural tendency of the universe to fall apart) exists in an isolated system, such as our universe.

 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 1:33am

Moe

Moe

1,780 posts

Science can provide no natural explanation for the creation of anything from nothing. That was called "spontaneous generation," and it was disproved in 1859 by Louis Pasteur.

Actually quantum mechanics allows for the universe to come from nothing.  I'm not a physicist and don't know much beyond that, but it was part of the basis for the book Stephen Hawking wrote that caused so much controversy in the religious world a few years ago.

 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 1:41am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

"Science" is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Science is based on creating theories after observing and experimenting. No one has ever seen the creation of the universe and it has never been recorded, documented or recreated in an experiment. If it cannot be observed and proved, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Do you have to witness a fire to realize that the charred house burnt down? We may not have "witnessed" the start of the universe, but that doesn't mean we can't see what is around us and see how it got there. There are many such evidences we have which all point to the Big Bang (which is not evolution).

Science can provide no natural explanation for the creation of anything from nothing. That was called "spontaneous generation," and it was disproved in 1859 by Louis Pasteur.

Spontaneous generation never had anything to do with the creation of the universe, only life. It is bunk anyways.

This alone negates the possibility of organic life coming from inorganic material.

That's like saying that because bees don't spontaneous combust bees don't exist. One wrong explanation of the how does not affect the what.

On top of that, why is the theory called "The Big Bang?" Sound does not travel in the vacuum of space. It would have been a silent explosion of (literally) unmeasurable proportions that happened in a way that cannot be recreated.

I don't know who named it, but it doesn't have anything to do with sound and it was more of an expansion, not an explosion.

With all its advances, science has not found a way to explain how the universe was created and how life came to be, outside of "random chance," which is NOT scientific.

It has, you just don't accept it. And even if science is wrong (which at this point, there is no evidence saying otherwise) it will correct itself when found to be wrong. Also, even if science is wrong, that doesn't make creationism right.

All in all, you talked about the Big Bang much more than evolution, which is the topic. So let's get back to evolution and leave irrelevant matters out, shall we?

 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 1:49am

pHacon

pHacon

1,313 posts

At the title of the thread:
Teach evolution in public schools?
Short story: Yes. 
Long story: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees. 

Teaching evolution is awesome.  It's the converse that's worrisome.  If you want your kid to learn whatever claptrap your church wants them to, homeschool them or pay for it.  Public education should always be secular.

Well, now that we've got that cleared up, I feel like nitpicking.  Well, not nitpicking.  More like calling out the general idiocy I see here.

Everything MattEmAngel said.

It's funny, really.  Actually, it's pretty hilarious.  You aren't even trying to defend your own views; you're instead trying to knock science down to the same level as your own views by claiming they're basically the same thing.  This would ordinarily come off as smug, silly, and objectionable, if not for that it might as well say that you value your views negatively if you think putting science with them is an adequate dig.

Almost every "point" you made is laughable if you know the first thing about any of the subjects you rambled off.

First of all, dictionary editors are NOT the supreme arbiters of word usage; they merely catalogue what words mean.  Language is a fluid construct.

Secondly, learn to logic.  This is reminding me of that time my professor made me prove .9 continuous = 1 using tools we hadn't even covered in class when he learned I was a math major for the short amount of time I was to spend in university before I left, just to see what I already knew.  And THEN asked me to illustrate a proof of Löb's Theorem, which I had to pull out of my arse because I'd never heard of it before.  But I was able to within the frantic time-frame I had (thankfully, it was a week) because I understood basic logic.  This may seem entirely unrelated, and it almost is, if not for how you can find an answer to the question, convoluted as it is.  It was a horrible waste of class time.

The important part is this.
P can prove that a proof of X implies X if and only if P can prove X.  Basically, if we can find a proof within P that P proves X, it's correct. 

Science has a hell of a track record and it's always getting better.  More complete.  It's continuously satisfied the ancillary conditions, and the theory currently being fielded are constructed of the totum of scientific knowledge we have.  That's not to say that they're perfect, though.  After all, one of the beautiful things about science is that it doesn't stop improving on itself and readily tosses out explanations that are no longer satisfactory (which is a hell of a lot more than religion can say.)

Anyway.  Just because empirical evidence is the foundation of science (take that, Greek philosophers!), that doesn't mean it's entirely necessary.  To put it simply
A implies B.
A
Then probably B.
Could it be something other than B?  Of course.  Is it?  Depends.  Say B had a probability of .49, the other results being .51 in total.  It's the most likely candidate, though the converse is more likely, because .51 > .49.  It's still the most trustworthy color to put your money on, though, if you only had a choice of one. 

The Universe isn't losing energy.  It's losing useful free energy.  You can't do much with an ever-expanding puddle of warmth, after all.  Well, other than run a very inefficient Stirling engine.  Or something.

Oh, and it's called the Big Bang because the term was originally made up by proponents of the Steady State hypothesis as a mockery.  But nobody knew that, and it stuck.  It's like how people thing Erwin Schrödinger was being serious when he came up with the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment, and not depicting a problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

And the lady doth protest too much, methinks.  Protesting your own side.  In the original meaning of the word.  Although the current one makes perfect sense too, by direct corollary.  In a binary choice system, given between A and B, if not A, then B. 

Science is still growing.  For all its advances it can't explain whatever meaningless gobbledegook you want it to at the moment.  So what?  That doesn't mean it'll never be able to.  I frankly don't see how that's unscientific at all.  It's more against the general scientific modus of thought to think what you're thinking, which is a textbook example of what bars progress.

 
Reply to Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

You must be logged in to post a reply!