Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

Posted May 7, '13 at 6:07pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

8,092 posts

Moderator

Evolution is not proven either should it be taught?

Man, if Evolution wasn't proven to be a highly-plausible principle, quite a bit of Biology would go unsolved.

Yes, evolution theory should be taught in the school system, along with creation!

Creationism can be taught, just in a Theology class, not in a Biology class. The reason being is that Creationism is not a science.

 

Posted May 7, '13 at 6:20pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,945 posts

Knight

Man, if Evolution wasn't proven to be a highly-plausible principle, quite a bit of Biology would go unsolved.

I'd go as far as to say evolution is on the same level as gravity; we know it's there, but the exact causes and mechanisms are still matter of research (what the others already mentioned saying it is "fact and theory").

The only time creationisms should be mentioned in evolution class is when you debunk it, i.e. mention the "eye complexity" argument and show how we can actually explain (based on evidence) how the eye gradually evolved. The rest of it belongs in theology class with all other beliefs.

 

Posted May 7, '13 at 6:30pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

Evolution is not proven either should it be taught?

Things aren't ever 100% "proven" in science. Proof is for math. Gravity isn't "proven", nor are germs, cells, planetary formation, plate tectonics, etc. But there are mountains of evidence demonstrating them to a high degree of certainty.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
-wiki

Fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

Theory: "In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."

-here

 

Posted May 7, '13 at 7:08pm

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

I'd go as far as to say evolution is on the same level as gravity;

What, you're saying we don't understand evolution?

 

Posted May 7, '13 at 7:13pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

I'd go as far as to say evolution is on the same level as gravity;

What, you're saying we don't understand evolution?

We have a far better understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution than we do gravity. I mean, as far as gravity is concerned, there's a lot of questions. Not so much with evolution.

Evolution is not proven either should it be taught? Yes, I know that most of creationism is based on faith but evolution is not rock hard either.

1) Evolution has been demonstrated to occur.
2) Literally 99.99% of the scientific community accepts it.
3) It is the basis for modern biology.
4) We have mountains of evidence for it in multiple fields of science.
5) Creationism, even if we were to hypothetically say evolution was incorrect, STILL would not go into a science class. It is not science.

 

Posted May 7, '13 at 7:19pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

Evolution is not proven either should it be taught? Yes, I know that most of creationism is based on faith but evolution is not rock hard either.

As EmperorPalpatine explained, nothing is ever completely proven in science.

Here's a quotation from an essay, The Relativity of Wrong.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Give the full essay a read, it will take about 10 minutes. Link.

We don't know everything there is to know about evolution, and some hypothesis will be proven wrong in the future, but we're always moving in the direction of being more right than before.

 

Posted May 8, '13 at 1:23am

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

We have a far better understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution than we do gravity. I mean, as far as gravity is concerned, there's a lot of questions. Not so much with evolution.

That was the thrust of my statement, yes.

 

Posted May 8, '13 at 1:24am

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,945 posts

Knight

We have a far better understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution than we do gravity. I mean, as far as gravity is concerned, there's a lot of questions. Not so much with evolution.

Point taken. I just thought that since not even creationists are gonna deny gravity, it sounded logical for an understandable analogy.

 

Posted May 8, '13 at 1:39am

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

That was the thrust of my statement, yes.

I was merely adding on :P

Point taken. I just thought that since not even creationists are gonna deny gravity, it sounded logical for an understandable analogy.

I'm sure many of us have used the comparison at one time or another.

We don't know everything there is to know about evolution, and some hypothesis will be proven wrong in the future, but we're always moving in the direction of being more right than before.

Exactly. And even if evolution was 100% wrong as we know it, that doesn't make creationism any more valid. The entire debate is one huge-*** red herring, whereby we get distracted trying to prove evolution to the creationists, when instead we should be bringing up points like separation of church and state, how creationism is not science, how it has no place in a science class regardless of evolution's validity, and other similar points.

 

Posted May 8, '13 at 1:48am

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

I was merely adding on :P

In that case I'm glad you provided an in-depth explanation to those who didn't immediately get the joke.

I don't know. Evolution vs. creation. I never used to care. Then I met people who didn't believe in evolution. It's really sad that that still happens in this society. And that we allow people to say "it's my opinion" to act like they're entitled to their ignorance. Like, people genuinely believe that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds.

There is no debate. Evolution is a fact. Even the acknowledgement that theories are fallible is a red herring. It applies to literally every other scientific fact. Everyone should go check out the snopes link Mage posted on Kasic's profile. It's bananas.

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

You must be logged in to post a reply!