Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

Posted May 8, '13 at 1:52am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

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.


Another thing that was pointed out to me recently is that with the k12 and under classes, they're job is to teach the scientific consensus. This is to give the student a platform to work off of for when they get into the more competitive areas such as the college and university levels of education.
 

Posted May 8, '13 at 5:35pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,260 posts

Knight

Everyone should go check out the snopes link Mage posted on Kasic's profile. It's bananas.

They are only half wrong in one point. Some dinosaurs still live all around us.

But the intent of the question, and all the rest, is catastrophic.

I think this may be interesting here: research done in 2005 that portrays the acceptance of evolution in 34 countries.
I am ashamed that my country is in the lower half.
 

Posted May 10, '13 at 2:29pm

aknerd

aknerd

1,431 posts

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


Speaking of SMBC:
Teach the Conntruhversy

I once met a person, who was my age, a biology major at a well known college, and on an ecology-based abroad program who did not "believe" in evolution. Some of the other people on the program started to argue with him (as people are wont to do), but I just sat back and didn't say anything. If a person who has clearly already had all the evidence presented to him at some point in his life doesn't want to subscribe to what is clearly the more well-evidenced theory, good on him. He will probably never be convinced and arguing would just be a waste of time.

I think we can all agree that the situation is entirely different when we are talking about grade school. Its not a matter of teaching "both sides" and letting people make their own decisions. Only one side has any kind of scientific credibility. There are people out there who believe that there are no such things as irrational numbers, or that the Pythagorean theorem is invalid, but we don't teach these as credible theories in school, do we?

Here's a bonus comic cause its Friday.

teaching is hard
 

Posted May 10, '13 at 7:03pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

I think teaching kids something that may contradict their religion is bad. JUST SAYIN! If you have a problem with my religion, Kalic, and the other jerks, then don't respond, cuz it will be a stupid comment that I will not listen to.

 

Posted May 10, '13 at 7:13pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

I think teaching kids something that may contradict their religion is bad.


Why is it bad to contradict religion? What makes religion so inherently valuable that it is wrong to question the validity of it?

Further, evolution is not contradictory to religion in general. Just very specific beliefs.
 

Posted May 10, '13 at 7:38pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

My religion is a very specific belief. How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love. I pity you Kasic, I really do. Maybe if you would just stop feeling guilty of your sins, and open up to religion. Maybe you'll be happier. It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory. I have more faith in it, and trust the sources more. When you look at the crazy things that scientists say, and the logical things religion says, you can only turn to one source. Now I know that you're just gonna find some way to try to prove your point, but I know that deep down inside, you crave religion, but you know that you just aren't strong enough to make the sacrifices and hardships. Weak... ;)

 

Posted May 10, '13 at 7:57pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Since arguing with you has proven pointless in the past, I'll be brief.

My religion is a very specific belief.


Good for you.

How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love.


That has nothing to do with evolution's validity.

Maybe if you would just stop feeling guilty of your sins, and open up to religion. Maybe you'll be happier.


1) Has nothing to do with this topic.
2) I'm quite happy.

It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory.


1) Irrelevant
2) Has no impact on validity.

When you look at the crazy things that scientists say, and the logical things religion says, you can only turn to one source.


*facepalm*

Yes, religion is so logical...so much so that this statement here is a logical fallacy, " It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory."

Now I know that you're just gonna find some way to try to prove your point, but I know that deep down inside, you crave religion, but you know that you just aren't strong enough to make the sacrifices and hardships. Weak... ;)


1) Another logical fallacy.
2) Off topic.
 

Posted May 10, '13 at 9:14pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love.


Please do so. I would rather not believe something that is wrong. Just remember to bring objective verifiable evidence to the table. And do remember your argument will be scrutinized.

Correcting error, even long held error is not a bad thing.

Maybe if you would just stop feeling guilty of your sins, and open up to religion.


Considering a sin is a violation of God's will and Kasic doesn't believe such a being exists. It would be rather hard to feel guilty about it.

It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory.


Age doesn't make something more valid. If it did there would be religions far more valid than yours.

I have more faith in it, and trust the sources more.


So your believing it with out evidence and trusting a colbed together, re-edited, self contradicting, factually inaccurate source more than a heavily evidenced, observed phenomena that has stood up to some of the harshest scrutiny we can possibly throw at it?

When you look at the crazy things that scientists say, and the logical things religion says, you can only turn to one source.


What crazy things would these be and what logical things is this religion saying? You mean logical things like talking snakes, magic spit, This thing...

http://coventryrm.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/cockatrice.png

(yeah it's in there, Isaiah 11:8, Isaiah 14:29, Isaiah 59:5, Jeremiah 8:17. NIV changed the word to viper.)

Or one of my favorites the whole of the human race coming from two people.
 

Posted May 10, '13 at 9:43pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,437 posts

I think teaching kids something that may contradict their religion is bad.

Have you ever tried to teach someone of a different faith about your religion? Wouldn't that be bad?

How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love.

A belief so strong, yet so unbacked that any doubt is a threat...

because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory.

So is the tradition of slavery. Doesn't make it right.
 

Posted May 10, '13 at 10:04pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Kasic, good job proving your point...oh wait, no, they're quite lackluster. Also, *******es, I didn't say anything about validity lol. You're going against what I was saying was valid, yet I don't remember saying valid. Also, trying to convert and totally putting down someones religion are two totally different things. Also, I'm not saying that it's the most valid, even though I believe it is, I'm just saying i believe it more than newer things. You're all too stupid to understand. For instance, if your father told you one thing, and your little sister told you the opposite, which would you believe? If you have half a brain, you'll see what I'm getting at. I'm not doubting evolution totally, I just trust the older, more credible source. The theory of evolution was posited by Charles Darwin and was published in 1859. "Evolution is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years"(What Is The" n.d.). Darwin's general theory presumes the" development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)"(Darwin's Theory Of" n.d.).
Rebuttal
Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, things must already be the case. For example: "there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety"("Can Evolution Explain" n.d). The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.Organs.
The human brain is one of the most complex things known to man. The brain stores an amazingly huge amount of information. The brain takes in all the colors and objects people see, the temperature around people, the pressure of someone's feet against the floor, the sounds around, the dryness of the mouth, even the texture of the keyboard. The brain holds and processes all natural emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time the brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of the body like for example breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. The brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows people to focus and operate effectively in the world. The brain functions differently than other organs "(Adamson n.d).There is intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. God created the human brain, because something as complex and intelligent can only be created by someone as complex and super intelligent like God.
The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. "It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter" (Adamson n.d). The only answer is God.

As Catholics we believe that God created everything and he has no begining.Evolution on the other hand, has a begininng. Tell me what came before bacteria and before that and etc.. Science has not found the answer to that yet.
Even einstein himself believes theres a God and he is classfily as one of the most respected scientist of all time.(Not saying hes Catholic). If someone as smart as him, who has dedicated his whole life to science believes that only God has created everything what does that say of science itself. He himself knows that theres somethings science can't prove. Science can not prove everything. On the other hand Catholcism proves everything, because the only explanition to everything is God.

Motion.
One reason why God prove evolution wroong is the argument of motion posited by Thomas Aquinas Catholic Phlisopher). His first proof was that "some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there cant' be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover" (Aquinas n.d). Thus, if Aquinas' argument is correct, "the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession. In other words, the argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence."("The argument of" 2012). Evident to our senses in motionâ"the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. An example would be an actual oak tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn. Unless there is a first mover , there can be no motion, taking away the actual is to take away the potential. In these terms, which came first the chicken or the egg? Another example would be "the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert"( " The Argument of" 2012). Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such; the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series.

A First.
Thomas Aquinas' third proof is "Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing"(Aquinas n.d). What the argument means "since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time. Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number .If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothingâ"there is no creation) for individual existent objects. But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe. Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists ( "The argument of", 2012).
One way to think about Thomas' argument is to consider "a straight line extending without bound representing time. If one takes a finite number of line segments of a specific length representing the time of existence of objects in the world and places them on that line, then most of the unbounded time-line would be unoccupied. That is, very little of the time would objects exist. Thus, there must be something necessary upon which these existent objects depend since at the present time it would so improbable that objects should exist"

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

You must be logged in to post a reply!