ForumsWEPRIs it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

367 40583
shortstopkid123
offline
shortstopkid123
20 posts
285

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
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,070 posts
1,705

I've battled with this, and the only suitable way to settle it is to teach both macro-evolution (the theory that we evolved from sponges or something) and creation (the theory of a supreme being that has given us life.) Nothing more than that (well, more intellectually of course, with all of the big words and stuff.) That way, it provides both theories whilst staying as secular as possible.


We avoid teaching creationism in science class the same reason we avoid teaching geocentrism in science class, or the idea that illness comes from sin, masturbation, or lack of faith.

If we teach creationism in schools, then the following problems present themselves.

1. We teach children (wrongly) that a theory is just an educated guess.

2. We teach children that you don't need empirical evidence to create a scientific theory, you just need an idea that sounds plausible.

3. We teach children to think using fallacious methods.

For example, if a "scientist" uses a red herring to &quotrove" creationism, then children learn to use red herrings to support what they believe is a scientific theory.

Here's a video that goes over 25 common fallacies used by creationists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

To teach creationism is to teach children how to think, wrongly.

4. We teach children that there's a lack of evidence to support evolution, when there isn't. We also teach children that there's evidence for creationism when there isn't.

IMHO, Science classes should not teach either theory. As those theories require faith to believe them to be true. They SHOULD teach, however, micro-evolution. (i.e. Darwin's birds.) Adaptation and natural selection are major components of biology, and those adaptations are actually observable in our natural world, unlike the other two.


There is plenty of evidence to support macro-evolution. You don't have to observe it as it happens. You just have to find other forms of evidence that supports the hypothesis.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

macro-evolution (the theory that we evolved from sponges or something)


or something... Macroevolution is just evolution at the scale at or above the level of species. This is something we have observed happen.

creation (the theory of a supreme being that has given us life.)


Creationism isn't a theory It has no observation that have been verified at all, in contract to the requirement of a theory to have observations based on hypotheses that have been verified multiple times by independent researchers.

Creationism has often focused on attempts to just discredit evolution instead of providing evidence for itself, as if defeating the leading theory would automatically put creationism in it's place. Even if evolution was shown to be completely wrong we would just be left with an unknown with creationism having all the work ahead of itself.

At worst it has at times even gone against the observable evidence, using flat out lies in order to convince people of it's validity.

At best we could call creationism/ID a speculation which is just a general statement about nature requiring no facts.

IMHO, Science classes should not teach either theory. As those theories require faith to believe them to be true.


Evolution at any scale is not requiring faith. We have actual observable evidence, which has been displayed on this forum many times and can be providence upon request at any time. It would be best to stop flat out ignoring the evidence at hand.


micro-evolution. (i.e. Darwin's birds.)


Darwin's finches were 12 different species of finch, as such being it was evolution at or above the level of species they are an example of macroevolution.

Adaptation and natural selection are major components of biology, and those adaptations are actually observable in our natural world, unlike the other two.


macro and micro evolution is the same process, just at different scales.

(cat) each small change in the population that still keeps it the same species (cot) is microevolution. With enough small changes (cog) you can eventually end up with an entirely new species that can no longer interbreed or do so with difficulty with the group it was once part of. These accumulated changes can leave the new species radically different from what it once was. (dog)
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,305 posts
390

Okay creationists. Try to laser-focus on the following fact: Mage said dogs evolved from cats.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Okay creationists. Try to laser-focus on the following fact: Mage said dogs evolved from cats.


LOL

Okay joking aside, that might actually get interpreted that way. Instead of it showing that you can get something completely different by just making small changes.

This is likely about what both cats and dogs evolved from looked like.

http://s59.radikal.ru/i165/0901/3e/849a7af8bafe.jpg
http://s45.radikal.ru/i110/0901/d6/64bcc378acd8.jpg

http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1055790309004424-gr1.jpg
StDrake
offline
StDrake
196 posts
16,530

WOW! Hyenas have closer to cats than to dogs? I've actually learned something interesting about nature from a silly ideological fight topic..

abt79
offline
abt79
61 posts
2,195

I'm a Christian, not an idiot. Evolution has obvious evidence, God probably added it as a built-in feature for the first forms of life.
To anyone who takes the entire Bible to a completely literal level, I call BS!

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

I'm a Christian, not an idiot. Evolution has obvious evidence, God probably added it as a built-in feature for the first forms of life.
To anyone who takes the entire Bible to a completely literal level, I call BS!

Do you accept human evolution? If so, how do you reconcile Jesus? Without original sin (Adam & Eve) there seems to be no need for him.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,878 posts
3,160

Do you accept human evolution? If so, how do you reconcile Jesus? Without original sin (Adam & Eve) there seems to be no need for him.


People have free will and need to be taught to exercise it properly. (NOTE: I am an atheist)
abt79
offline
abt79
61 posts
2,195

Please further explain what you mean by "reconcile Jesus"....?
Jesus died for all of our sins.

pft
online
pft
542 posts
19,450

Jesus died for all of our sins.


So this means we can sin all we want but be forgiven anyway?
abt79
offline
abt79
61 posts
2,195

If we truly seek forgiveness and our mindset isn't "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT CUZ IMA GO TO HEAVEN ANYWAY"

pft
online
pft
542 posts
19,450

If we truly seek forgiveness and our mindset isn't "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT CUZ IMA GO TO HEAVEN ANYWAY"


Is there a court system up there to deem if you truly seek forgiveness or not? Angels on the jury? Who wouldn't seek forgiveness even if they have a i can do what i want attitude? The alternative is hell. So they would beg for it anyway.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

I'm a Christian, not an idiot. Evolution has obvious evidence, God probably added it as a built-in feature for the first forms of life.
To anyone who takes the entire Bible to a completely literal level, I call BS!


Considering the bone headedness I've been dealing with on this front lately. ((hugs))

Please further explain what you mean by "reconcile Jesus"....?
Jesus died for all of our sins.


The general thought behind this is that Jesus's death was to wipe clean the original sin that is claimed we all carry. That would be the one Adam and Eve committed. As such without Adam and Eve actually being real Jesus's death to wipe away the sin they left everyone becomes rather pointless.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,864 posts
18,680

Jesus died for all of our sins.


This cliche would be excuseable if it weren't entirely wrong.
According to the Roman Catholic authorities, he allowed himself to die as a demonstration of his humility, kindness, and absolute forgiveness, the idea being that true divinity was not displayed by power, rage, or tyrrany, as was generally believed to be characteristic of gods. His death could be regarded as being "for the salvation of the faithful from their sins", because of the establishment of Christianity, but not simply for or because of sins.
MacII
offline
MacII
1,348 posts
1,395

Jesus died for all of our sins.


Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine -- Patti Smith

(Jesus died for his own sins, not mine -- Crass.)
Showing 346-360 of 367