AGS Steam Games

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

364 125628
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 know you didn't mean it like that; I just dislike such identifications. My apologies for the rant.


He wasn't really talking about religion itself in that sentence to begin with. He was talking about how teachers are afraid of mentioning the subject at all due to previous legal things.

Why is it that one cannot be religious and scientifically oriented as well?


They aren't mutually exclusive, but when you believe in something without reason to and assert that as truth over what we have evidence for, that's when it becomes an issue.

One can't take the Bible, for instance, seriously at all times, especially not when it comes to legends;


That's another problem. Common sense would tell us that those events in the bible were meant to say that they literally happened and were not allegorical. Yes, there are some things that are obviously metaphors, but...the Hebrews escaping from Egypt through the parting of the sea and the drowning of the Pharaoh's troops as they pursued them is too specific for it to be meant as anything other than an actual event.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

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.


Just tacking the word science to something doesn't mean it was properly conducted. When talking about science we are talking about knowledge or more common the method we use to arrive at that knowledge.

Science
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"- Oxford Dictionary

If you are doing science in some other fashion you're not doing science.

I will give you that a tiger is still a tiger when it's labelled a mouse.


And it's the same for evolution as well, regardless if the majority believes it or not.

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.


The point being made is that there is pressure being put on teachers not to teach these things. I used the term religion rather than being more specific because I was trying to not sound as if I was singling out any one specifically, as per the request of the OP. "Lets try not point out certain religions."


But it will still be experimental, no?


What do you mean by experimental?

science is often even more hotly debated and disagreed on than history.


that's it's strong point, it thrives on being contested. But the real question is what is the value of that disagreement? What basis does one disagree with a point in science on? Not all of it's equal.

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.


Evolution has a number of direct applications to it, beyond that of even immunization as you later pointed out.

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).


there really are people who deny gravity, I can't remember what they propose otherwise at the moment.

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.


if you're going by the Bible then you are going against what it is claiming happened. Though I do actually have a small axe to grind with theistic evolution. That is that we understand the mechanisms involved with the theistic aspect added you're either having to ignore or deny one or more of those mechanisms or having to add a superfluous mechanism.

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?


That's not deism. Though yes one can hold a religious view and be a scientist. This is because we tend to compartmentalize and when a view that has been compartmentalized in one way conflicts with a view from the other, we tend to go into cognitive dissonance.

Why is it that one cannot be religious and scientifically oriented as well?


one can, the problem with mixing the two is that the methodologies are at odds with each other.

Anyways, few religions have such mythology, at least directly speaking.


Yes many religions do have creation stories of the world.

"Reli­gion was the race's first (and worst) attempt to make sense of reality." -Christopher Hitchens

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.


The events in the Bible as it is today are in there because the people who canonized it did take it all seriously.

When Darwin developed his theory, most of the modern world (at least most of England) took it as fact.


Darwin didn't actually develop the theory, he discovered the mechanism by which it works. This discovery catapulted the theory to the forefront. It also allowed it to combat the widely held belief at the time that everything was made as is in it's current form.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?


Of course it is. The education system should be about the teaching of facts and the understanding of fiction. We have a duty of care to the next generation to inform them of what is true, why and how we know that it's true. No dilly-dallying around trying to reconcile well-supported and well-evidenced scientific theories with some outdated religious sensibilities.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

I understand that.But the way your saying it is that the school has the right to tell students what to believe. What I am saying is that teachers should teach without saying it is right or wrong.
What kind of country is it if school say what we can and cant believe?

teachers are there to learn those kids something. i math your not getting the option to believe if it's true yes are no. it is a fact. the same whit, english, history, physics, chemistry, geography, economy, IT, techniques, etc.

if we are free to believe if 1+1=2 is true yes or no. then i have no more hope for the country.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

So was talking with a friend today during school and apparently one of the Biology teachers at my school doesn't believe in evolution (checking on validity of it). Gotta love the irony

Then there is Paul Broun..

MattBPlaysMinecraft
offline
MattBPlaysMinecraft
10 posts
Nomad

Well, not ALL Christians believe the Bible is 100% factual in everything... in fact, I was taught it was wrong to assume so.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

Well, not ALL Christians believe the Bible is 100% factual in everything


But with that..the Bible is supposed to be the word of god. And if it is the word of god..and you are believing that it is not all correct..then you are believing that what god said was wrong..which is quite the no-no if I'm not mistaken
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

But with that..the Bible is supposed to be the word of god. And if it is the word of god..and you are believing that it is not all correct..then you are believing that what god said was wrong..which is quite the no-no if I'm not mistaken


Theoretically yes, but a Christian's ultimate allegiance (Seems too harsh, yet rather apt word) is to Christ and to God. Yet it's pretty obvious to most that even if He exists most of the versions of the Bibles today aren't written directly by Him, given that,,,,well, there are literally hundreds of versions out there.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,773 posts
Peasant

My Bible teacher was Atheist. We talked about some part of the bible {its a must subject in Israel, 2 hours a week [its diffrunte from USA studing style, pm for more info]}. So we talked about it, We did compare to other 'creations", like the babylonian one and the greek one. So in seconde thought, it is nice and quite educative.

P.S. Never ever read the Japanise one. Damm, even there mytholigy is pervert...

SeaTurtle
offline
SeaTurtle
116 posts
Nomad

I don't have a problem with it, but it's very hypocritical that some people would freak out if the opposite was taught. Both sides being taught is important.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I don't have a problem with it, but it's very hypocritical that some people would freak out if the opposite was taught. Both sides being taught is important.


I doubt so. If the other were taught, then why shouldn't Islam's version, or Judaism's version be taught as well?
ihsahn
offline
ihsahn
428 posts
Nomad

I don't have a problem with it, but it's very hypocritical that some people would freak out if the opposite was taught. Both sides being taught is important.

Science isn't a controversy or a discussion. There aren't "sides".

You see, the whole "teach the controversy" thing is a fallacy that Creationists perpetuate because it gives their doctrine a false equal standing with actual science. When you say that there's "sides", they seem both worthy of consideration and valid, when that's a lie, because creationism isn't scientific or evidence-based.
It's not any more hypocritical to deny creationism in favor of evolution than it is to deny geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism. One side is wrong, one side is science. Wanting two sides in a discussion for the sake of imaginary balance is a fallacy of false compromise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

The honest truth of it is that evolution is the scientific establishment and "intelligent design" is a repackaging of religion with pseudo-scientific language.
Fenrisle
offline
Fenrisle
25 posts
Farmer

[quote=HahiHa][quote=Fenrisle]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 .[/quote]
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.[/quote]
That's another generalization. Are you a theologian/historian and have studied every major religion in the world, as well as all apropos religious works and knowledge? Even if religions don't encourage scientific thought, they usually don't discourage it.
Often it is one's own merit and worldview. However, science says nothing on religion because science is based on facts that we can comprehend and find; whether or not one's faith is "true" so to speak, science doesn't encourage such a mindset. Should scientists then not be religious if they want to follow the scientific method and empirical evidence strictly?

[quote]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.[/quote]
That depends on one's definition. Often they are not part of the holy text(s), and if they are quite often denominations, sects, or even individuals choose to accept them as canonical of their own views.
I don't underestimate the amount of such people; I'm not counting them in this argument. Sorry about that -- it is a large group.


[quote=Kasic][quote=Fenrisle]I know you didn't mean it like that; I just dislike such identifications. My apologies for the rant.[/quote]
He wasn't really talking about religion itself in that sentence to begin with. He was talking about how teachers are afraid of mentioning the subject at all due to previous legal things.[/quote]
He said that religion made evolution a hot topic, which in itself isn't quite true, but it also clumps all religions into one with that wording. Again, I know he didn't mean it like that.

[quote]Why is it that one cannot be religious and scientifically oriented as well?

They aren't mutually exclusive, but when you believe in something without reason to and assert that as truth over what we have evidence for, that's when it becomes an issue.[/quote]
How is it an issue? Are you saying that faith is something that doesn't belong in science? Science is by no means atheism or associated with it.
Many scientists have faith in science and in experimenting; in fact, most discoveries are mistakes.

If one believes in a Supreme Being, do you not think they'll put Them above science, regardless of how "scientific" as people they are?

[quote]One can't take the Bible, for instance, seriously at all times, especially not when it comes to legends;

That's another problem. Common sense would tell us that those events in the bible were meant to say that they literally happened and were not allegorical. Yes, there are some things that are obviously metaphors, but...the Hebrews escaping from Egypt through the parting of the sea and the drowning of the Pharaoh's troops as they pursued them is too specific for it to be meant as anything other than an actual event.[/quote]
True, but Biblical events are mainly dependent on interpretation. But if you don't believe in them, others probably do; in fact, why wouldn't most Christians believe in what their holy book states?


[quote=MageGrayWolf][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]
The point being made is that there is pressure being put on teachers not to teach these things. I used the term religion rather than being more specific because I was trying to not sound as if I was singling out any one specifically, as per the request of the OP. "Lets try not point out certain religions."[/quote]
Sadly, that is true.

I understand that, and as stated earlier, know you did not mean it in that way; however, I have seen much generalization and discrimination meant in such a manner elsewhere, so I ranted unnecessarily. My sincere apologies.
Still, "religion" is not a group.

[quote]But it will still be experimental, no?

What do you mean by experimental?[/quote]
Science is prediction, observation, and result. Nothing is certain.

[quote]science is often even more hotly debated and disagreed on than history.

that's it's strong point, it thrives on being contested. But the real question is what is the value of that disagreement? What basis does one disagree with a point in science on? Not all of it's equal.[/quote]
The question of value is to itself. It might be entirely useless or extremely important and controversial. The invasive properties of HeLa cells, for instance, was disagreed on simply because people didn't like the idea of it; that didn't turn out well.

[quote]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.

Evolution has a number of direct applications to it, beyond that of even immunization as you later pointed out.[/quote]
Yes, it does; that doesn't make it directly and fundamentally relevant to the extent of gravity.

[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.

if you're going by the Bible then you are going against what it is claiming happened. Though I do actually have a small axe to grind with theistic evolution. That is that we understand the mechanisms involved with the theistic aspect added you're either having to ignore or deny one or more of those mechanisms or having to add a superfluous mechanism.[/quote]
I am not Christian, so I am not going by by the Bible. Unless you are referencing in general, which isn't necessarily true.

Please clarify; why do you say as much?

[quote]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?

That's not deism. Though yes one can hold a religious view and be a scientist. This is because we tend to compartmentalize and when a view that has been compartmentalized in one way conflicts with a view from the other, we tend to go into cognitive dissonance.[/quote]
I didn't say it was. Deism was an example.

Dissonance? How do these compartmentalized and fundamental beliefs of people conflict?

[quote]Why is it that one cannot be religious and scientifically oriented as well?

one can, the problem with mixing the two is that the methodologies are at odds with each other.[/quote]
Again, how so? Religion is not an application of material fact, and science is not an inward ideology of faith.

[quote]Anyways, few religions have such mythology, at least directly speaking.

Yes many religions do have creation stories of the world.[/quote]
But few are directly in-text; if they are, they are debated on whether or not they are canonical. Regardless, many of a given religion agree or disagree with that mythology, be it sect, familial, individual, or due to other reasons.

[quote]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.

The events in the Bible as it is today are in there because the people who canonized it did take it all seriously.[/quote]
How can you prove this? Also, they were still human; many Christians today do not agree with some or a lot of the previous canonical text.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

That's another generalization.


No, it's not. Religion by nature tells people what to believe. That does not encourage open-mindedness or critical thinking.

How is it an issue? Are you saying that faith is something that doesn't belong in science? Science is by no means atheism or associated with it.
Many scientists have faith in science and in experimenting; in fact, most discoveries are mistakes.


It's an issue when any given set of data is going to be interpreted as a forgone conclusion. Fossils? God made them/they aren't millions of years old despite that all data points at it. Thus our methods must be wrong...that's creationist thinking. They purposefully disregard things just to suit their belief. Now, I'm not saying if you're religious you're going to do this, or that you have to be religious to do that, but religion is -the- major factor against evolution which is why I specifically mentioned it.

Faith does and does not belong in science. At our most base principles, yes, there is faith that what occurred in a specific instance can be repeated under the same circumstances. Beyond that, faith is unnecessary.

I'm aware that science is not atheism, although it's pretty close in that it doesn't "believe" in a god since one has not been proven to exist.

You're right and wrong with that most discoveries are mistakes from experimenting. The discoveries come while testing a hypothesis (which isn't the same as faith at all) and finding they are either right or wrong or that something completely unexpected happens.

If one believes in a Supreme Being, do you not think they'll put Them above science, regardless of how "scientific" as people they are?


And that's exactly the problem. They put something which is not proven and which we have no evidence for above logical reasoning and experimental process.

But if you don't believe in them, others probably do; in fact, why wouldn't most Christians believe in what their holy book states?


They do and they don't. I can tell you from experience that most Christians haven't even read the Bible fully. So for a large part, they don't even know what their holy book says aside from what gets taught at church (which are usually the same verses/books and only parts of them). Then it comes down to individual interpretation and following of said parts.

No one Christian believes the same thing in my experience.

Still, "religion" is not a group.


I would argue that it is. Religion is defined as having multiple aspects to it. People identify as religious and follow said traditions/teachings. Thus when you speak of religion, you also speak of what people have proclaimed to follow. While it's true that religions are different, in many ways they are similar.

Science is prediction, observation, and result. Nothing is certain.


We make the assumption that things are certain if you know the process behind them. To do otherwise is basically throwing your hands up in the air and expecting bananas to shape shift on whim.

Yes, it is prediction, observation and result, but we can repeat said results.

that doesn't make it directly and fundamentally relevant to the extent of gravity.


The point of the gravity comparison is that it's another theory. We actually know less about gravity than we do about how evolution works anyways.

Please clarify; why do you say as much?


The Bible directly claims that God made everything as is. Taking a theistic evolution stance as a Christian is basically saying that the creation story is a metaphor and the inserting an unnecessary component to evolution (God) as the cause or screw with what evolution claims in parts to fit everything just poofing into existence.

Dissonance? How do these compartmentalized and fundamental beliefs of people conflict?


Well, in the case of evolution from a creationist standpoint.

Evolution states that organisms came from a common ancestor.
Creationism states that everything was made as is.

Obviously, if you're going to accept evolution and believe in creationism, you have to compromise one of the two or delude yourself into thinking they don't conflict.

Again, how so? Religion is not an application of material fact, and science is not an inward ideology of faith.


As stated earlier, religion by nature conflicts with the scientific process (Religion makes a claim, it is accepted) (Science makes a claim, you have to prove it).

But few are directly in-text; if they are, they are debated on whether or not they are canonical. Regardless, many of a given religion agree or disagree with that mythology, be it sect, familial, individual, or due to other reasons.


The ones who don't follow the literal interpretation of the creation story aren't creationists then and aren't arguing against the validity of evolution from a groundless standpoint.

How can you prove this?


Various statements and proclamations make it pretty obvious that people were expected to believe the Bible as the whole truth and that the events inside actually took place and were not metaphors.

many Christians today do not agree with some or a lot of the previous canonical text.


There are many more types of Christians today, yes. 1000 years ago not so much. Sure, people probably had their own interpretation of the Bible (if they could read it) but most just accepted what they were told as fact because no one was contesting it.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

I'll just highlight the problem with religion and science in this one example.

Scientist A proposes that a certain type of fish is related to another type of fish. He then examines genetic material between the two and isolates a series of retroviruses which are present in one fish are present in the other. From this he concludes that at some point the other species of fish separated from the ancestor and then began to acquire different retroviruses. This is one part of his proof.

Scientist B argues that the fish is not related to the other because they are "distinctly different" and that retroviruses do not prove evolution occurred. He gives no alternate explanation as to why both types of fish would share the same retroviruses or have similar features. He states that macro-evolution has not been proven but does not offer any other reason to oppose Scientist A's hypothesis.

Do you see the problem with Scientist B's methodology and thinking?

Showing 46-60 of 364