AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

364 125656
shortstopkid123
offline
shortstopkid123
20 posts
Nomad

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
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

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
9,808 posts
Jester

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
2,301 posts
Nomad

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
9,462 posts
Farmer

"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
9,439 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
9,504 posts
Jester

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
5,043 posts
Shepherd

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

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

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
5,043 posts
Shepherd

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
339 posts
Farmer

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???

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

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???


Creationism is not a theory. Therefore, it would be wrong for schools to teach it as such. It doesn't belong in science class, nor a class of it's own, because it isn't science.
toemas
offline
toemas
339 posts
Farmer

Evolution is not proven either should it be taught? Yes, I know that most of creationism is based on faith but evolution is not rock hard either.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Evolution is not proven either should it be taught?


Man, if Evolution wasn't proven to be a highly-plausible principle, quite a bit of Biology would go unsolved.

Yes, evolution theory should be taught in the school system, along with creation!


Creationism can be taught, just in a Theology class, not in a Biology class. The reason being is that Creationism is not a science.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Man, if Evolution wasn't proven to be a highly-plausible principle, quite a bit of Biology would go unsolved.

I'd go as far as to say evolution is on the same level as gravity; we know it's there, but the exact causes and mechanisms are still matter of research (what the others already mentioned saying it is "fact and theory&quot.

The only time creationisms should be mentioned in evolution class is when you debunk it, i.e. mention the "eye complexity" argument and show how we can actually explain (based on evidence) how the eye gradually evolved. The rest of it belongs in theology class with all other beliefs.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

Evolution is not proven either should it be taught?

Things aren't ever 100% &quotroven" in science. Proof is for math. Gravity isn't &quotroven", nor are germs, cells, planetary formation, plate tectonics, etc. But there are mountains of evidence demonstrating them to a high degree of certainty.

"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."
-wiki

Fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

Theory: "In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."

-age=2">here
Showing 211-225 of 364