ForumsWEPRIs it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

367 40932
shortstopkid123
offline
shortstopkid123
20 posts
Peasant

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.

  • 367 Replies
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
Blacksmith

Is evolution a theory? I'm trying to clear something up and I can't figure it out through Google's results. I'll offer my input when someone tells me.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

Is evolution a theory?


Evolution is a scientific theory. However, a scientific theory is different from what many consider to be a theory. In science, a Theory is the highest any principle goes. It explains a process, instead of defining something, which would be a Law. Evolution will never be a scientific Law, because that is not how scientific nomenclature works.

All of these are scientific theories.

Germ Theory is still a theory, despite that we know beyond any doubt that microscopic organisms are the cause of diseases. A Theory is the end of the line in science.

Short answer: It's not a theory as in something someone made up on the spur of the moment. In science, we refer to that as a hypothesis, an assertion yet unproven.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

Forgot to add this.

Scientific Theory

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.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
Blacksmith

Thanks Kasic. I couldn't remember.

I started taking Biology 101 about a month ago, and so far the class seems to be dedicated to teaching both evolution and cellular structure. Being that the class is solely an introductory class, you wouldn't think there'd be much to it. It's also the fourth actual college class I've taken so far, so I didn't imagine it'd be very hard. But there's actually a lot I've learned in the sole month I've been enrolled in the class. Most of it has been regarding cellular structure, but we've had a hefty amount of evolution thrown into the mix as well.

My professor is a full blown atheist. She's very open about it, which is, to me anyway, very surprising. She's attempted to debunk creationist theories left and right, and most of the time I can't say I'd know how to argue her. But she isn't a militant ***** who forces her opinion on others, but a fairly open-minded person who's willing to listen to the theistic nonsense (at least from her perspective) that pours into her ears. She tries to explain theistic and more secular ideas side by side, and sometimes even correlates them into a single lesson. She's tried to explain how she believes the universe started in both the biblical and scientific way and mix them. She's tried to find reasoning for both sides.

If there was a way to somehow get every teacher or professor to lecture in a similar way, I think it would be achievable, albeit a receiver of negative criticism from the extremists on both sides.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

If there was a way to somehow get every teacher or professor to lecture in a similar way,


I feel like you would like Frances Collins
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

I started taking Biology 101 about a month ago, and so far the class seems to be dedicated to teaching both evolution and cellular structure.


Evolution is a cornerstone of all modern biology. Not learning it in an introductory class is like not learning how to add and multiply in math. It explains so much and has implications beyond the direct process. Every aspect of life is relevant to evolution.

She's tried to find reasoning for both sides.


Of course both sides have their own reasoning. However, Creationist logic is based on one thing and one thing alone: The Bible. It has no relevance to any physical evidence. Creationism directly ignores a great many things with it's blind insistence that the Bible is true.

If there was a way to somehow get every teacher or professor to lecture in a similar way, I think it would be achievable, albeit a receiver of negative criticism from the extremists on both sides.


Salvidian, the problem with teaching Creationism in science class is that it's not science.

No one here has any problem with it being taught in say, a theology course or something similar to that. Creationism (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) is one of thousands of equally unproven religious stories. If it's going to be taught in school, it should not be presented as an equally valid alternative, because it's not. It has no empiracal evidence, makes no testable claims, is directly contradictory to all current knowledge and unproven in every aspect.

The Bible, Qur'an, Torah, Vedas, or any sort of religious text has no place in a science classroom, regardless of your beliefs. Theology is not science.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

However, Creationist logic is based on one thing and one thing alone: The Bible.


Little side note

Was readin a Time article featuring Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, in which they both discussed/debated the idea of "true" evolution (not sure what the actual term is..but the idea of evolution without a god) and creationist evolution (again, not sure what the term is..but the idea of evolution being a creation of a god who created us). At one point, Collins mentions something along the lines of (will find the quote later..as I have the article in my possession, just not on me) how he wishes to find the answers (not personally find them..but gain knowledge) to things that are unknown as of now...but then the rest of the time he makes an argument that because we don't have all the answers to evolution, it must be god.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,305 posts
Peasant

Wow Sal, that sounds like a really horrible way to teach biology. As Kasic says, the difference is that they aren't two equal ways of looking at the world. One is science and one isn't. Talking about creation isn't being fair, it's a waste of class time.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

"true" evolution (not sure what the actual term is..but the idea of evolution without a god)


That's just called evolution.

and creationist evolution (again, not sure what the term is..but the idea of evolution being a creation of a god who created us).


Theistic evolution.

but then the rest of the time he makes an argument that because we don't have all the answers to evolution, it must be god.


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/946990_591827480836329_1709061688_n.png
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

That's just called evolution.

I've heard Darwinian/Naturalistic Evolution, but I guess the qualifiers are out of date.

Theistic evolution

Usually they call it Intelligent Design now, because they want to say "something/someone did it" without directly claiming a specific god.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,554 posts
Bard

I've heard Darwinian/Naturalistic Evolution, but I guess the qualifiers are out of date.


The original was just called Rock, but now there's Hard Rock and Punk Rock which have their own spin of the style but isn't true to the original.

Usually they call it Intelligent Design now, because they want to say "something/someone did it" without directly claiming a specific god.


They gave it a fancy name to sound scientific, but it's pseudo-science. They are still claiming a superpower created everything, they just don't specify who. They don't test their hypotheses and observations. And certainly not under objective, peer-reviewed sources.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,063 posts
Farmer

I just watched Intelligent Design On Trial. It was a good watch.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,019 posts
Farmer

so glad to see that, even after months away from actively participating in the forums that the same old debates rage on XD

aaaaand... just wanted to say that there really is no "true" (or w/e) evolution debate. The issue that many theists are attacking in their statements are not based on evolution but are directed at abiogenesis, which they seem to not understand at all. However that is where they insert their patent "god started it all" statements so they don't like complete fools trying to disprove evolution while still managing to insert their particular flavor of deity in the equation.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,063 posts
Farmer

so glad to see that, even after months away from actively participating in the forums that the same old debates rage on XD


To be honest, most of the members active in this section are atheists who accept evolution. There's not really much debate between evolutionists and creationists. We're just bored. : (
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
Blacksmith

Yes, evolution theory should be taught in the school system, along with creation! If you have a separate class for both theories then you (or in other cases your parents) could decide!

is it that hard to comprehend???

Showing 211-225 of 367