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.
I don't think public schools should teach this... "evolution" or whatever. Public schools are funded by the government, tax dollars, and the government was founded under God.
Read: First Amendment, Treaty of Tripoli
No, don't teach this "evolution" public schools, because you are putting shame to America and they are pretty much dissing the constitution and all the "in God we trust" stuff.
No, don't teach this "evolution" public schools, because you are putting shame to America and they are pretty much dissing the constitution and all the "in God we trust" stuff.
maybe you shouldn't trust in god. he is a awful guy you know.
Well, I hate to say, but the validity of the theory is a little shaky for me to believe it's true.
Be specific. What do you think is too shaky for it to be valid? Because literally 99.99% of the professional scientific community accept evolution as fact. It's a cornerstone of modern biology. It's supported by numerous other fields of science in the timeline aspect, we've used it in agriculture and medical fields, and much, much more.
A lesson from school actually shows macro-evolution at work. A good case is sickle-cell anemia in people of African descent, and how carriers for the gene are resistant to malaria. This is evidence enough for macro-evolution, and I don't even need to go into the peppered moth observation.
Like Mage said, this isn't macroevolution. It's a great example of microevolution though.
The thing is that micro and macro aren't the same thing. They're both caused by the same thing (genetic mutations), but they are not the same process. Microevolution doesn't make new species. Macroevolution does.
Please, PLEASE make that distinction. Leaving them clumped together under the umbrella term of "evolution" is only going to confuse scientific fact with well-supported-but-not-100%-proven-quite-yet theory.
The thing is that micro and macro aren't the same thing. They're both caused by the same thing (genetic mutations), but they are not the same process. Microevolution doesn't make new species. Macroevolution does.
Yes it is the same thing, just on different scales. All it's doing is making a distinction on the level of change that occurred. Many don't even bother with this as it's all allele frequency change.
Please, PLEASE make that distinction. Leaving them clumped together under the umbrella term of "evolution" is only going to confuse scientific fact with well-supported-but-not-100%-proven-quite-yet theory.
Please don't ignore the examples of macroevolution that were provided for you.
The thing is that micro and macro aren't the same thing. They're both caused by the same thing (genetic mutations), but they are not the same process. Microevolution doesn't make new species. Macroevolution does.
The difference between micro and macro evolution is the difference between a foot and a yard.
Many creationists believe micro and macro evolution are two different processes. They aren't. They're the exact same process.
The thing is that micro and macro aren't the same thing. They're both caused by the same thing (genetic mutations), but they are not the same process. Microevolution doesn't make new species. Macroevolution does.
That's like saying that taking a walk to a house two doors down and walking a marathon aren't the same process.
I'll just answer the question without intruding upon the conversation... I don't see why it wouldn't be okay to teach it. It's perfectly scientific fact. Even if Darwin didn't have a degree in theology, it still makes a lot of sense about all the homologous structures and whatever else it was that's written on my Biology notes.
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.
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.
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]
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.
