Forums → WEPR → Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?
| 364 | 121348 |
Many parents argue about schools teaching evolution. Creationalists do not support or believe in the theory of evolution. It goes against their beliefs. They do not believe it should be taught because it apposes many peoples' beliefs. Do you think that it should be taught?
Notes:
Lets try not point out certain religions. I am saying creationalists for a reason.
- 364 Replies
Usually when people say Creationists they're referring to those who think the world is ~7000 years old.
oh, ive always used it as a word for "religious people"
Ok Kasic, sure you can make a cake without knowing where the ingredients cam from, but you have to have them in the first place. If your makings theory you need to start from the bottom and work your way up, before hey continued to thinking of the rest of it they should have started with he beginning, where all the matter came from. But no they didn't start there and there's no scientific explication for it but they don't worry about that, they just skip that one very basic element and go on with the rest of their little ideas.
It started with evolution then expanded it to the Big Bang theory making it relevant.
If your makings theory you need to start from the bottom and work your way up, before hey continued to thinking of the rest of it they should have started with he beginning, where all the matter came from.
As stated previously, where everything came from is irrelevant to how life changes.
If you want to follow this logic, well, buh bye all modern science. Everything is invalid because we can't explain 100% where stuff came from. No cars work now, electricity is a lie, gravity is fictional, the sun orbits the earth, guns don't shoot because gunpowder is just a powder and we're all wandering around picking berries off of bushes because we don't know where matter came from.
But no they didn't start there and there's no scientific explication for it but they don't worry about that, they just skip that one very basic element and go on with the rest of their little ideas.
Bull. We have plenty of evidence for evolution. We aren't "skipping one very basic element" because that element doesn't even matter to the subject at hand.
It started with evolution then expanded it to the Big Bang theory making it relevant.
Huh? By "it started with evolution then expanded it to the Big Bang theory making it relevant" are you talking about the topic of this thread? If so,
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING. We're never said that the Big Bang theory is irrelevant to this thread (it is though, just throwing that out there now to be clear) we're saying that the Big Bang theory is irrelevant to evolution.
Third time asking, what's this "guesswork" you speak of in evolution? Where all matter came from has nothing to do with evolution btw, for the 8th time or such.
Where is it? "Missing link" after "missing link".
Round and round the merry go round goes...
"Missing link" is mostly a misnomer. The phylogenetic tree is for the most part proven.
At what point does something become a new species? You'd have to first determine that.
Then we have to get into fossil formation. Fossils don't form very often, they're rare. Not only are the conditions for which they form not found frequently, something has to die and end up there. Then that has to be undisturbed for thousands of years, and then it has to not get destroyed. Then we actually have to find it.
The sheer amount of fossils we have are actually one of evolution's strongest points.
The sheer amount of fossils we have are actually one of evolution's strongest points.
And it's not even necessary as the evidence in comparative genomes of different species is enough evidence for evolutions accuracy.
This sort of misunderstanding of evolution and further than that science in general I think indicates how schools should do a better job of teaching this stuff, or at all.
Where is it?
Here ya go.
And here.
Here.
Simplified stuff
here,
here,
and here
At what point does something become a new species? You'd have to first determine that.
Isn't it considered new when one group can't successfully reproduce with another? Although asexual organisms are a bit of a roadblock on that...
Then we have to get into fossil formation.
Not that it matters. If we had full remains from every creature that ever lived/died lined up in order, they point at the trillion or so spaces and say "Where are the ones that go in those gaps?"
This sort of misunderstanding of evolution and further than that science in general I think indicates how schools should do a better job of teaching this stuff, or at all.
Schools fear the sue-happy nutcases who feel their beliefs or their children's beliefs are being infringed upon, especially in the South.
This is getting ridiculous...
- Claiming evolution is not a fact because it does not explain where matter comes from, makes as much sense as claiming gravity is not a fact because it does not explain how plants grow. A scientific theory does not encompass the whole of science, this would be asinine. But each and every theory is based on observable facts and evidence, making them all completely independent of each other.
- Just to make this clear, I don't think we should teach ALL of the current evolutionary theory as being fact. It's a very dynamic field; things are still in research, details change now and then, new stuff comes up regularly. We have many questions yet to answer satisfyingly. BUT the fact that organisms evolve is as certain as the fact that masses exerce gravitational forces on each other. We don't know the exact origins of gravitation yet, still we teach it as fact in physics class.
- Evolution is one of the most intrinsic property of life, if not the most. We know that organisms evolve, because we can observe it on living animals and because fossils show us animals were different back then. The simplest class on genetic recombination would not make any sense without evolution. Any lab work in biology/pharmacology uses the fact that organisms evolve
- Literally every fossil you find is a missing link, as is every living animal. Producing a continuous series of fossils showing the detailed step by step evolution without a doubt, is virtually impossible. But it's not needed to study the evolution of past life, as a few cardinal points are already enough to plot phylogenetic trees, granted we have enough characteristics available. But as mentioned, fossils, even though they nicely illustrate the evolution of previous life, are not necessary to assess that organisms evolve, as we can very well determine that with modern organisms. Paleontology is just a sort of nice (very very very nice) cherry on top of the cake, and often even a useful one as genetic analyses cannot unveil all relationships yet.
It is quite funny to see this conversation as there's a huge problem in it:
People who claim that evolution is bull**** don't actually know what evolution is nor do they understand the mechanics of it. How can you argue against something you don't even understand? (don't bring the bible discussion up...)
To understand evolution you need to know the basics of genetics and inheritance. Without the knowledge of these, you can't make any REAL arguments about evolution. Evolution is at its core about the variance in organisms' genome and how the organism's genome EVOLVES. Now if you understand the evolving of genome and the inheritance, you can draw a line there and understand how new species became to be.
I am a Roman Catholic which is a religion that many people accuse of Creationism.
Lulz no, that be Puritan Protestant evangelicals in the US.
Like most arguments here, it's the fools against the logical. I don't even understand what manly's going on about, evolution in no way encompasses science as a whole, it's just the cornerstone of modern biology.
I feel like bringing something up:
Seems to tie in well enough.
I don't even understand what manly's going on about, evolution in no way encompasses science as a whole, it's just the cornerstone of modern biology.
Most people against evolution have some common standings.
1) They don't understand what a scientific theory actually is. They believe a "theory" to be something anyone can spout off.
2) Religious background which tells them that the world was created.
3) Selective application of logic.
4) General disinformation about what evolution actually states and covers.
Lol, @Palpatine, while its admirable that you collected those links, I don't think that people who oppose evolution came about those views by doing a lot of reading! Like most of these threads, it seems to be a couple poorly spelled and articulated posts that espouse either misguided or willful ignorance, followed by about a dozen well-thought out, reasoned responses. The problem is, none of the former ever seem to stick around long enough to absorb anything. Hence my assumption that they maintain their views by not doing a lot of continuing education or voluntary academic endeavors such as reading.
1) They don't understand what a scientific theory actually is. They believe a "theory" to be something anyone can spout off.
2) Religious background which tells them that the world was created.
3) Selective application of logic.
4) General disinformation about what evolution actually states and covers.
Makes me want to say You are the result of 2.5 million years of evolutionary success. ACT LIKE IT
Lol, @Palpatine, while its admirable that you collected those links, I don't think that people who oppose evolution came about those views by doing a lot of reading! Like most of these threads, it seems to be a couple poorly spelled and articulated posts that espouse either misguided or willful ignorance, followed by about a dozen well-thought out, reasoned responses. The problem is, none of the former ever seem to stick around long enough to absorb anything. Hence my assumption that they maintain their views by not doing a lot of continuing education or voluntary academic endeavors such as reading.
The ineffective hit-n-run used by those who do not understand a topic but feel an urge to lay siege to the logical.
Still, why is ManlyMan arguing? Surely he's not devoutly religious?
You must be logged in to post a reply!