Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 3:08am

sensanaty

sensanaty

1,145 posts

I'd be worried if it weren't "allowed" to teach evolution in public schools.

Because, popular to dogmatic belief, evolution is long-proven, and it's been fact for quite a while now.

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.


Have you ever heard of the concept called as "a theory"? Scientists never said that they have a definite answer as to how the universe started, and most likely never will, but they use their current knowledge of the universe to be able to understand a bit better how it may have happened.
 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 3:14am

pHacon

pHacon

1,941 posts

Have you ever heard of the concept called as "a theory"? Scientists never said that they have a definite answer as to how the universe started, and most likely never will, but they use their current knowledge of the universe to be able to understand a bit better how it may have happened.


Yes to the second sentence, but please don't toss around the phrase "a theory" like people who don't know what it means do. A theory in science is the closest to proof you can get short of mathematical fact.
 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 3:25am

sensanaty

sensanaty

1,145 posts

A theory in science is the closest to proof you can get short of mathematical fact.


That is far from the truth. I have a theory that 9 in 10 Americans are heavily obese, sleep with their weapons tight against their body and strongly support Romney. Now, this is a theory, and as we all know is far from truth. It applies the same in science.
 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 3:34am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

Have you ever heard of the concept called as "a theory"? Scientists never said that they have a definite answer as to how the universe started, and most likely never will, but they use their current knowledge of the universe to be able to understand a bit better how it may have happened.


Gravity is a theory, as is plate tectonics. Does that make them any less viable? Each one of those theories have mountains of information supporting them, yet they are still theories.
Heck, even the idea that all living things are made up of cells (and related functions) is a theory. And I believe that's kinda of a well-known truth along with gravity and plate tectonics in the world.
 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 3:37am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

That is far from the truth. I have a theory that 9 in 10 Americans are heavily obese, sleep with their weapons tight against their body and strongly support Romney. Now, this is a theory, and as we all know is far from truth. It applies the same in science.

Sorry for double post buuut:

That's not science. You're not following the scientific method. You have not spent countless hours and dollars researching those statements. Innumerable other scientists (in the same way as you have come to that 'theory have not come to the same results.

Scientific theories and normal theories are not even slightly related. I am mortified someone in this day and age fails to understand this.
 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 3:57am

pHacon

pHacon

1,941 posts

That is far from the truth. I have a theory that 9 in 10 Americans are heavily obese, sleep with their weapons tight against their body and strongly support Romney. Now, this is a theory, and as we all know is far from truth. It applies the same in science.


Hahahahaha, no. Learn to read so you aren't assuming the wrong thing. Learn to do research so your claims aren't baseless. Learn to doubt yourself.

Scientific theories and normal theories are not even slightly related. I am mortified someone in this day and age fails to understand this.


Thanks on that, Voidy.

This is why Dawkins proposed the word "Theorem" to take up the meaning usually attributed to scientific theory. Honestly, I've just taken to using hypothesis to describe non-scientific ones.

/offtopic, I guess.
 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 5:42am

sensanaty

sensanaty

1,145 posts

Void and pHacon remind me of college. Every person there calling me a moron. Guess there's a strange correlation there.

Theories being whatever theories are or are not, what I wanted to say in my original post is that we cannot know 100% surely whether we are right or wrong (in most/some cases, before you guys decide to pick on my words again), but at least we attempt to understand the things we talk about, unlike religion (or Creationism in this case) which just says "It just happened".

inb4 you guys find something else wrong with my post

 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 7:47am

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

Scientific theories and normal theories are not even slightly related.

i science we talk about theories and hypothesis right?
where a scientific theory has evidence for iets claims. a hypothesis has not and is a "normal theory"
 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 11:59am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

Objection rejected, MattEmAngel.

As mentioned by Kasic already, you can say a house probably burned down if you only see the charred remains. And it seems inconsiderate to me to assume that the Big Bang (not an explosion by the way), being the start of our current universe and thus the most crucial event, left no trace at all.

Also spontaneous generation has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Organic life from inorganic material is not "Something from Nothing" but (and it seems quite obvious to me) "Something from Something". And here again, there are enough traces left (pretty much all of life, plus geological evidence for the conditions at the time) to make plausible models for how it occured.

As such science, and by that including evolution too (leading back on topic) is often sort of detective work, looking at facts and traces, and reconstructng the events. It is not just wild random guesses, it's founded opinions and theories. As such it should definitely be told at school, and definitely differently than any religion.

 

Posted Jan 24, '13 at 3:26pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

"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.


Yes it is based on observation and experimentation. And the Big Bang as a theory does indeed fit with our observations and experimentation of the universe. As such IT'S SCIENCE.
Evidence for the Big Bang

There was no source of heat or density because nothing existed.


No that's not what I states, it's believe to have started from a singularity. A nearly infinite hot, dense state.

On top of that, why is the theory called "The Big Bang?" Sound does not travel in the vacuum of space.


The name was coined by Fred Hoyle trying to mock and discredit the theory. Fred was a proponent of the Stead State model of the universe. The name "Big Bang" stuck.

That is far from the truth. I have a theory that 9 in 10 Americans are heavily obese, sleep with their weapons tight against their body and strongly support Romney. Now, this is a theory, and as we all know is far from truth. It applies the same in science.


No one person can make a theory. What you would have here is a hypothesis.

Hypothesis; A prediction based on an observation. This proposes a rational explanation for the observed phenomenon, but has not yet been verified.

Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers.
 
Reply to Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

You must be logged in to post a reply!