Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

364	121324

offline

85 posts

Peasant

Posted May 29, '13 9:04pm UTC

Separation of church and state, leave your religion at the door when you get to school. The most you're supposed to find of religion at school is in the pledge of allegiance and that's just one word. In school evolution is taught as a theory (despite the fact that there is more proof to support than others such as creationism) not as a law. Students are allowed to believe whatever they want, they could completely refute this theory if they want. It is not the job of educators to tell students what they should believe in.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,442 posts

Jester

Posted May 29, '13 11:56pm UTC

leave your religion at the door when you get to school

You can still do religious stuff in schools if you want to (as long as they aren't disruptive or harmful) on your own time, like if you want to pray before class because you didn't study. And if a student has certain needs, like kneeling towards mecca 5x/day or always wearing a hat, the school must accomodate to some degree. Mandatory activities, like requiring daily prayer, are out. Teaching religion as fact is out. Teaching about religion may be fine in cultural classes, but not science.

In school evolution is taught as a theory

And rightly so, as long as theory is properly defined to clarify that it doesn't mean "guess".

not as a law.

Here.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted May 30, '13 1:57am UTC

In school evolution is taught as a theory (despite the fact that there is more proof to support than others such as creationism) not as a law.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It never was and never will be a law. Theories don't become law. A law is something different entirely.

A scientific law is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. A factual and well confirmed statement like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as a scientific law. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are well supported by observations and experimentation. Unlike theories, laws don't explain why an observation is the way it is. Also laws are limited to circumstances resembling those previously observed.

they could completely refute this theory if they want.

There is a difference between denying something and refuting it.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted May 30, '13 8:21pm UTC

The problem with schools, both public and private, is that science teachers often teach students that a theory is an "educated guess".

Honestly, if a science teacher believes a theory is an educated guess, they should be fired on the spot.

offline

exitpathuser

154 posts

Nomad

Posted May 30, '13 9:45pm UTC

I believe it is ok to be taught because just because one small population within the school doesn't believe/want to be taught it doesn't mean all the children in the school do. those kids that dont want it to be taught probably got it from their parents and if thats what they believe then thats their choice. and parents can teach them that at home

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted May 31, '13 12:38am UTC

The problem with schools, both public and private, is that science teachers often teach students that a theory is an "educated guess".

Honestly, if a science teacher believes a theory is an educated guess, they should be fired on the spot.

Unfortunately even scientists will use the term theory in this way, which only further confuses things.

I believe it is ok to be taught because just because one small population within the school doesn't believe/want to be taught it doesn't mean all the children in the school do.

In the US among the general public the numbers aren't that small. About a third of the population does not believe in evolution, believing that we came into existence in our present from by a creator of some sort.
(This is from 2009 Pew Research.)

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-58.gif

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-60.gif

offline

SonOfVader

110 posts

Blacksmith

Posted May 31, '13 11:04am UTC

In the US among the general public the numbers aren't that small. About a third of the population does not believe in evolution, believing that we came into existence in our present from by a creator of some sort.
(This is from 2009 Pew Research.)

Interesting how, according to these stats, women are more likely to follow the literal interpretation of biblical scripture than men are; considering the abundance of verses in the bible that treat women as little more than birthing machines.

offline

thepyro222

2,151 posts

Peasant

Posted June 4, '13 5:26am UTC

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.

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.

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted June 4, '13 6:18am UTC

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.

But they shouldn't be allowed to teach the FSM's theory of creation or Steve-ism's theory of creation?

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

No...one requires faith...the other requires scientific backing, which it has. Because it has such strong scientific backing, it may thus be taught in a science class.

offline

HahiHa

8,259 posts

Regent

Posted June 4, '13 6:19am UTC

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.

Creation is not a theory, it is a belief. Teach theories in science classes and beliefs in religion classes. Neither one has anything to do in the other.

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.

Micro- and macroevolution are both parts of evolution. You cannot take one without the other, as (assuming you do make the difference) macroevolution is based on microevolution, and microevolution doesn't make sense if it doesn't lead to macroevolution eventually. And there's no faith required in evolution, only evidence, which we have.

[quote]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. [/quote]\r\nCreation is not a theory, it is a belief. Teach theories in science classes and beliefs in religion classes. Neither one has anything to do in the other. \r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\nMicro- and macroevolution are both parts of evolution. You cannot take one without the other, as (assuming you do make the difference) macroevolution is based on microevolution, and microevolution doesn't make sense if it doesn't lead to macroevolution eventually. And there's no faith required in evolution, only evidence, which we have.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 4, '13 7:04am UTC

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.

[quote]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. [/quote]\r\n\r\nWe 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.\r\n\r\nIf we teach creationism in schools, then the following problems present themselves.\r\n\r\n1. We teach children (wrongly) that a theory is just an educated guess.\r\n\r\n2. We teach children that you don't need empirical evidence to create a scientific theory, you just need an idea that sounds plausible.\r\n\r\n3. We teach children to think using fallacious methods.\r\n\r\nFor example, if a "scientist" uses a red herring to "prove" creationism, then children learn to use red herrings to support what they believe is a scientific theory.\r\n\r\nHere's a video that goes over 25 common fallacies used by creationists:\r\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk\r\n\r\nTo teach creationism is to teach children how to think, wrongly.\r\n\r\n4. 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.\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere 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.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted June 4, '13 11:05am UTC

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)

[quote]macro-evolution (the theory that we evolved from sponges or something)[/quote]\r\n\r\nor something... Macroevolution is just evolution at the scale at or above the level of species. This is something we have observed happen.\r\n\r\n[quote]creation (the theory of a supreme being that has given us life.)[/quote]\r\n\r\nCreationism 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. \r\n\r\nCreationism 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. \r\n\r\nAt worst it has at times even gone against the observable evidence, using flat out lies in order to convince people of it's validity. \r\n\r\nAt best we could call creationism/ID a speculation which is just a general statement about nature requiring no facts.\r\n\r\n[quote]IMHO, Science classes should not teach either theory. As those theories require faith to believe them to be true.[/quote]\r\n\r\nEvolution 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.\r\n\r\n[quote]\r\nmicro-evolution. (i.e. Darwin's birds.)[/quote]\r\n\r\nDarwin'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.\r\n\r\n[quote]Adaptation and natural selection are major components of biology, and those adaptations are actually observable in our natural world, unlike the other two.[/quote]\r\n\r\nmacro and micro evolution is the same process, just at different scales. \r\n\r\n(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)

offline

Xzeno

2,301 posts

Nomad

Posted June 4, '13 12:39pm UTC

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

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted June 4, '13 2:42pm UTC

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.