Forums → WEPR → Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?
| 364 | 121435 |
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
I think that learning that 2+2=4 represents learning somrthing fundamental about the world and if I am a kid who has parents who teach him 2+2=5 I am in trouble. Search me what's it's got to do with teaching evolution. I'm just standing up for 2+2=4.
A large portion of americans would disagree.
Doesn't really matter, that's where the evidence leads.
While there are alot of athiests now a days, its not the majority.
Being atheist or not has nothing to do with evolution.
Whats wrong if it is taught and giving student the right to believe it or not?
A person is entitled to their own beliefs. They however are not entitled to their own truths.
"The good thing about science is that itâs true whether or not you believe in it." -Neil deGrasse Tyson
For all it's worth, Muslims tend to be very persistent in their faith - what should you do, tell them they can't believe it anymore?
I might tell them they shouldn't believe anymore.
which is ironic since most of the more flamboyant atheists tend to bring up the holy wars as an example of how Christianity is bad, or religion in general. Yes, that argument could be used against Islam, but there are much better ways to deal with it. Also, forcing people to learn what contradicts their beliefs? With all due respect, that stems right back to the submit thing that the Catholic church was holding on to for quite a number of years.
Little Suzy believes that she can float in the air like a balloon and fly by flapping her arms. So we shouldn't teach her about things like aerodynamics, gravity and mass.
No it's not the same. One is belief (opinion) the other is fact (the truth) It's a schools job to teach the facts.
Still, though, why shouldn't evolution be taught?
Maybe you missed the whole cornerstone of modern biology thing?
In all my years of science and education, evolution didn't really have any hand in what I was doing, or religion, for that matter.
If that science and education involved biology in any way I can almost guarantee it played a direct or indirect role.
The better option, in my own opinion, would to go into homeschooling where you can actually learn the material based off of your religion and history, if that would so please you; but like I said, most, if not all, of what I have learned in up to and through highschool is hardly related to either evolution or religion.
Such a method of learning can lead to a person being kept in the dark or given misinformation on the subject.
But mathematics and algebra doesn't contradict religion - it's historical facts and deity that contradict with each other.
And whether or not evolution is true or not in this case is rather irrelevant - there will still be some people in the world that believe in some religion *cough*MiddleEast*cough*, and until all the world comes to conclusion that evolution is true and there are no exceptions, there is nothing you can do, unless you want to go on crusades and try to convince thousands to believe in atheism, and all will bow and say 'Amen!'
This only puts religion in bad light. This demonstrates just how religion impedes our ability to learn and understand the world around us.
You would become known as the saint who made people see the truth, and be written in the Great Book of History and Truth - your writings would be recorded and treasured all throughout the world for many millenia to come.
No you wouldn't. It's not a belief, it would be kind if you stopped trying to treat it as such. Unlike the crusades no one is going to go around kill for not accepting a scientific theory. In fact science thrives on being questioned and challenged. However this isn't what a religious mindset does. It wants to circumvent the system, keep critical examination at bay and that is when you get your crusades.
Search me what's it's got to do with teaching evolution. I'm just standing up for 2+2=4.
As you said teaching 2+2=5 can lead to trouble. This goes for evolution or anything else for that matter.
In case you were wondering, I was not talking about the Crusades and the Holy War. I was targeting something more like the Billy Graham Crusades.
Never really heard of his crusades. What I gather from wiki just sounds like a cross between a sermon and missionary work. Was he going around forcing people to listen and participate?
At any rate the two still fall far from each other.
Also, I think world-view is mostly the key component here.
There is yet another different, evolution isn't a world view.
Just out of curiosity (of your answer, mostly), what topics specifically would have been missed relating to evolution as a result of objective curriculum?
biochemistry, genetics (heredity), germ theory, while on the microscopic if you ever studied bacteria evolution should play a role in that. classification of life , ecology, embryology, ...I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch and possibly better examples.But each of those example would involve the use of evolution in them at some point. Genetics would be one of the best examples in there.inheriting genes from our parents get practically to the core of evolution. With ecology, the relationship animals have with each other and the natural world. That practically gets to the core of natural selection. How we classify life, that's phylogenetics, that's the very study of evolutionary relationships.
@Joel
But mathematics and algebra doesn't contradict religion
Maybe not your religion but why should one religion get special exclusions to publicly funded (government funded) education that will affect the education of the rest of the population. Its garbage like that which helps explain why the US is struggling in math and science compared to other advanced countries.
And whether or not evolution is true or not in this case is rather irrelevant
No, we are talking about what gets taught in science class!!! What is true is actually the only thing that is important. Once again.... we are not talking about converting anyone to or from any religion! we are talking about what gets taught in science class!
Mage Grey
I dispute the quote about science being true whether you believe in it or not because I am aware that in the USSR that the government had its own science to suit the purposes of the state. This brand of Soviet science was not true.
I think that if the USA adopts creationism in schools because of pressure from bible belt voters it follows the same path.
I will give you that a tiger is still a tiger when it's labelled a mouse.
Mage Grey
I dispute the quote about science being true whether you believe in it or not because I am aware that in the USSR that the government had its own science to suit the purposes of the state. This brand of Soviet science was not true.
I think that if the USA adopts creationism in schools because of pressure from bible belt voters it follows the same path.
I will give you that a tiger is still a tiger when it's labelled a mouse.
The key word there being "Soviet Science"
There are fundamentals to science, not the labels. Gravity is still gravity, even if you label it otherwise or say it is an impossible force that makes no sense. Electricity is undeniable, but it existed before we discovered it. Science finds these things out, these processes and forces.
When Darwin developed his theory, most of the modern world (at least most of England) took it as fact. And back then it was a theory. Why is it so hard to take it as fact? Religion means well but all it does is breed ignorance. If evolution contradicts your silly beliefs, why not just leave school? I am sure you could go to a private religious school instead.
Why is it so hard to take it as fact? Religion means well but all it does is breed ignorance.
Because religion forms the basis and core of many peoples' life. I haven't escaped it fully even after turning atheist; I still observe superstitions and pay respects to my ancestors a few times a year. And I wasn't even a devout Buddhist. I shudder to think how hard it would be for others more steeped in religion to change. It's not exactly easy to reject your entire way of life, even if all the logic in the universe is served up to you on a silver platter. I can emphatise.
[quote=MageGrayWolf]The problem is with religion making it a hot topic teachers will tend to shy away from the subject. We see this with climate change as well. The result is many kids are not being taught properly.[/quote]
I don't like your use of the world "religion" in that sentence; it seems to generalize and make false hypotheses. There might be certain sects of a few religions who tend to disagree with evolution, but nothing is absolute, and certainly nothing is carried over from one religion to another solely because they're religions.
I know you didn't mean it like that; I just dislike such identifications. My apologies for the rant.
But yes, teachers are only human and have to take into account many factors. This is especially true in the United States, considering the First Amendment and the right to essentially sue at will.
Sadly, this impacts our children.
Not absolutes just means it leaves room for improvement and gives it the ability to make predictions. It doesn't mean open to opinion.
But it will still be experimental, no? I don't disagree with you, but many intellectuals choose not to believe in certain theorems of even mathematics; science is often even more hotly debated and disagreed on than history.
Evolution is fundamental, but not a direct factor like such forces as gravity and inertia; as such, disbelief in it doesn't really make too big an impact on an individual.
I don't like your use of the world "religion" in that sentence; it seems to generalize and make false hypotheses. There might be certain sects of a few religions who tend to disagree with evolution, but nothing is absolute, and certainly nothing is carried over from one religion to another solely because they're religions.
Nearly all religions teach that their deity/s created the world or the life on it. Some of the followers will believe in evolution anyway, but then, are they really devout followers for doing so? Why follow a religion if you can't even bring yourself to believe the things it teaches?
There might be certain sects of a few religions who tend to disagree with evolution, but nothing is absolute, and certainly nothing is carried over from one religion to another solely because they're religions.
I guess religion here means the institution. These are mostly individuals who are religious yet take evolution as somehow true; they may be a big part of the more moderate religious people, even. But usually a religion has it's own myths and legends to explain the world, and thus if e.g. a christian doesn't discard evolution, it isn't a merit of his religion at all.
Evolution is fundamental, but not a direct factor like such forces as gravity and inertia; as such, disbelief in it doesn't really make too big an impact on an individual.
Pastafarianism tells that it is not gravity, but the Noodly Appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster holding every object back on the surface. Thus disbelief in gravity doesn't really make too big an impact on an individual either (I am eprfectly aware that Pastafarianism isn't to take seriously, but it still illustrates my point).
[quote=Masterforger][quote=Fenrisle]I don't like your use of the world "religion" in that sentence; it seems to generalize and make false hypotheses. There might be certain sects of a few religions who tend to disagree with evolution, but nothing is absolute, and certainly nothing is carried over from one religion to another solely because they're religions.[/quote]Nearly all religions teach that their deity/s created the world or the life on it. Some of the followers will believe in evolution anyway, but then, are they really devout followers for doing so? Why follow a religion if you can't even bring yourself to believe the things it teaches?[/quote]
That's nonsensical. My religion teaches creation by the deity, but I believe in evolution as nowhere does it say contrary to the existence of other other species or similar; in fact, the scientific method is supported, though not in direct words.
Besides which, many can be devout followers of sects of religions following the ideology you mentioned, as well as highly scientifically minded. I take it you're familiar with such aspects of religion as deism?
These are mostly individuals who are religious yet take evolution as somehow true;
Scratch that "These", it looks like it is referring to religious institution of the previous sentence but it's not.
[quote=HahiHa]I guess religion here means the institution. These are mostly individuals who are religious yet take evolution as somehow true; they may be a big part of the more moderate religious people, even. But usually a religion has it's own myths and legends to explain the world, and thus if e.g. a christian doesn't discard evolution, it isn't a merit of his religion at all. [/quote]
Again, the two are not separate. Why is it that one cannot be religious and scientifically oriented as well? "Yet" implies as much, whether referring to religious institutions or individuals .
Anyways, few religions have such mythology, at least directly speaking. One can't take the Bible, for instance, seriously at all times, especially not when it comes to legends; it was written by humans who make mistakes, as is accepted by most sects of Christianity as institutions.
(Sorry if I sound off. I haven't slept for quite a while, and am working on something as well.)
Pastafarianism tells that it is not gravity, but the Noodly Appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster holding every object back on the surface. Thus disbelief in gravity doesn't really make too big an impact on an individual either (I am eprfectly aware that Pastafarianism isn't to take seriously, but it still illustrates my point).
But what if one does not believe in the phenomenon of gravity but has nothing to explain it?
The only notable direct impact of evolution is viruses: strands, vaccination, etc.
Again, the two are not separate. Why is it that one cannot be religious and scientifically oriented as well? "Yet" implies as much, whether referring to religious institutions or individuals .
I didn't say it isn't possible; I know it is, and know people who acknowledge evolution even though they're openly religious. What I'm saying is, this is their own merit, not their belief's. Religion as such does not encourage such a mindset, even if it doesn't contradict it directly and allows such things.
Anyways, few religions have such mythology, at least directly speaking. One can't take the Bible, for instance, seriously at all times, especially not when it comes to legends; it was written by humans who make mistakes, as is accepted by most sects of Christianity as institutions.
I doubt that only few have such mythologies. Besides, I think you underestimate the amount of people who consistently stick to their holy texts in all situations.
You must be logged in to post a reply!