Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104847 |
Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
- 697 Replies
you have to admit that the more the scientists study those arguments, the more informations we get. So, we better give them time to study, and i'm sure that one day everything will be clear in a scientific way.
you have to admit that the more the scientists study those arguments, the more informations we get. So, we better give them time to study, and i'm sure that one day everything will be clear in a scientific way.
What are you talking about?
I'm not really so convinced that our leading scientists are taking their time to study the world's religious creationist theories to learn more about science.
It was a Neanderthal, that resembled a monkey in APPEARANCE. It was in actuality, a common ancestor to us, and to those other primates that are linked to it.ShentesuWa
Actually I have done a little research, What happened before the ICe age the common ancestor, migrated from africa to europe then the ice age cut the population and each group of peoples evolved, In Europe were it was much colder the Neanderthal evolved while in Africa Cro-magdon or the first homo sapians our ancestors...when the ice age started to thaw cro-magdons migrated north and came into contact with Neanderthals by the way I think the estimate for total Neanderthal population is like 500,000
I specifically quoted this, because this is 80% of the reason why people detest Evolution, because they are ignorant of what the meaning of evolution really is.
Oh yea, definitely. People don't like evolution because they don't understand it. I think something like over 50% of Americans think that Darwin said we are descendants from monkeys. Its a complete falsehood.
Why should this be one of the only origin of life taught in schools? Because this is a form of Biology, it deals with life, species, and how those organisms came to be species that they are now.
Evolution is the only scientifically tested, replicated, with lots of evidence, theory that is out there for the origin of life. Intelligent design is just a theory. There is no science, no testable ways to prove it or evidence that it might be possible. It just completely defies the scientific method, and then asks to be accepted as science. Even though there is nothing scientific about it!
One of the things that bothers me, is that they are always trying to mix things around to make it acceptable. Since evolution is a science, and intelligent design isn't, they try calling it a science to get it into science education. When that doesn't work, they try calling evolution a religion. Why? Because if people religiously believe in evolution, then why can't we teach the possibilities of a supernatural designer as well? Evolution has been called by some intelligent design theorists a 'quasi-religion'. They just keep trying to come up with different ways to equate the two.
Who told you that evolution was the only origin of life taught in schools?
It is the only legal one to teach in schools. Intelligent design is not allowed to be taught in public schools.
___
So I have a question for you all. Evolution is based on science and the scientific method. It requires looking at evidence critically, and being able to make judgments about its origins and implications. Now, intelligent design asks us to believe that a supernatural being is behind this. Complying with this dogma means that we do not have to think critically about origins, because we are told that it just happened, its that way because the 'designer' meant it to be that way. So, now to my question: Would teaching intelligent design in science classes deleteriously alter a children's ability to think critically about science, since it is asking children to believe in this 'theory' based on a sort of faith?
So I have a question for you all. Evolution is based on science and the scientific method. It requires looking at evidence critically, and being able to make judgments about its origins and implications. Now, intelligent design asks us to believe that a supernatural being is behind this.
Intelligent design is a little more intelligent than that. Its basically saying 'evolution with a nudge'. But yeah, it has you believe there is a man behind the curtain.
Complying with this dogma means that we do not have to think critically about origins, because we are told that it just happened, its that way because the 'designer' meant it to be that way.
No more than evolution does. There still has to be proof, but essentially its arguing that things evolve too fast for Darwinian Evolution to purely account for it. Personally I think thats just because his theory isn't good enough. We need an Einstien to de-Newtonize our evolution so to speak.
So, now to my question: Would teaching intelligent design in science classes deleteriously alter a children's ability to think critically about science, since it is asking children to believe in this 'theory' based on a sort of faith?
Nope. You are still teaching evolution, but intelligent design is a counter-point. If anything you would have to think more critically because you would have to define the differences between the two and reach the best choice between the two, in the same way that an individual must choose between atheism and belief in something else. The kids that don't think critically about things after intelligent design is taught are the ones who didn't before. Its like you think most people are intelligent or something. Most people are just dumb.
Well, dumb is a little harsh. Lets say they are too lazy to think critically about anything, and two theories as opposed to one is not going to change that. You'd have people thinking we evolved from monkeys or God killed all the dinosaurs because they were ugly instead of just that we evolved from monkeys.
Would teaching intelligent design in science classes deleteriously alter a children's ability to think critically about science, since it is asking children to believe in this 'theory' based on a sort of faith?
Sorry,but if you want to try and make that arguement then couldn't you say the same, by trying to teach evolution or pretty much the whole curriculum of earth science which for the most part teaches things based off of the big bang theory, and evolution and doesn't even bother saying that you don't have to believe in it.The thing is Christianity is more based off of history now that I think about it,but that is where its main evidence lies.The thing is Jesus was a historical figure and there is more then enough historical evidence to back up the ideas of Christianity(compared to any other beliefs in that manner)Although that's besides the point.You are trying to say that by only teaching one theory and not teaching any others or even allowing people to mention them that this would help children think critically about science and help them in thinking independently on how it works.Unless I misunderstood what you just said.It sounds like one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever seen from you.The fact is if you only tell one side of the story then you are not helping students think critically,but only in the way that you want them to.Although on the off-hand...
Oh yea, definitely. People don't like evolution because they don't understand it. I think something like over 50% of Americans think that Darwin said we are descendants from monkeys. Its a complete falsehood.
That I can agree with you on.The thing is Darwinism and the big bang theory(or the Big Bull Theory as I like to call it) seem like such ignorant theories to me that I can't even begin to describe how ironic it is that anyone would call me ignorant for not believing it to be true.
Hmm I seem to have misread that first part that I claimed to have agree with.I feel a bit foolish about that,but still what I was thinking that you said was that the theories of Darwinism were a complete falsehood.Also when videos shown to children at a young age tell another story.It is hard not to get these types of ideas and suggestive stereotypes about a certain theory in general.What I mean is that in early elementary school over in my area at least they would tell these ideas about how we originated from apes or something similar,and they link it to the theory of evolution.I think that may be one reason for some kind of misunderstanding, if any on that matter.Although I am a bit irritated with myself for getting some kind of misconception about it.Still my opinion on the matter still stands.
No more than evolution does. There still has to be proof, but essentially its arguing that things evolve too fast for Darwinian Evolution to purely account for it. Personally I think thats just because his theory isn't good enough. We need an Einstien to de-Newtonize our evolution so to speak.
No, that is not what intelligent design argues. It argues that a designer created these things, and that it was not an undirected process. Not an undirected process that was just sped up. Basically, it is the exact same thing as the theory that alien species came to earth and planted the first cell, and then evolution took it from there. There is still a designer. It is the same concept. But you don't see people getting up in arms over that. Why not? Because this is all really about religion.
You are still teaching evolution, but intelligent design is a counter-point.
No no no. It is not even close to being a counterpoint. The thing is, ID is not scientific. So it has absolutely no place in scientific curriculum, as a counter-point or otherwise.
If anything you would have to think more critically because you would have to define the differences between the two and reach the best choice between the two, in the same way that an individual must choose between atheism and belief in something else.
A-ha! See what you did there... Choosing between atheism and 'something else', that something else would naturally be religion. And that is basically what this whole argument is about with ID. RELIGION.
Sorry,but if you want to try and make that arguement then couldn't you say the same,
No, its not the same at all. There is physical evidence that backs evolution up, and encourages children to look through the progressions and learn about the different mechanisms. ID just says "its that way because someone thought it should be that way." NOT, what in nature could have changed this, what are the causes and effects?
A-ha! See what you did there... Choosing between atheism and 'something else', that something else would naturally be religion. And that is basically what this whole argument is about with ID. RELIGION
and the ignorance shows again...actualy ID states that something made us and the most common idea of ID is the we were made of E.T.s
Braces. As time has passed in the last century or so, the FDA created strict regulations on food. Meats became more and more processed until they were up to standard, and thus became easier to eat as well. In addition to this, the recent studies that a healthy diet requires fruits and vegetables have pulled people from eating as much meat.
Because food is becoming easier to eat, and our diets are changing, our mouths are becoming smaller, less useful instruments. However, we still have the same amount of teeth. Because of the cramped space, the teeth push against each other, and braces are used to correct this. I'm not saying that people had perfect teeth thousands, even hundreds of years ago. But close to 90% of the people I know have had braces to straighten their teeth...
Ya and our pinkies are getting smaller...de-evolution anyone?actauly ID and creationism say that we were made with all the dna we need to adapt to our suroundings our dna is changing we already had it in us
No, its not the same at all. There is physical evidence that backs evolution up, and encourages children to look through the progressions and learn about the different mechanisms. ID just says "its that way because someone thought it should be that way." NOT, what in nature could have changed this, what are the causes and effects?
The thing about teaching evolution that I think is most definitely contradictory to this is the fact that they only teach the strengths of evolution and how they think it is right,without having any real universal theory(as in a theory that is believed by more then just a select group of people who believe in evolution) on how life started, and without also bothering to teach any of the weaknesses of the theory.If someone wanted to question the theory of evolution based solely on scientific evidence.It would make no difference as they would be labeled the same as someone who believed in creationism.I would think that they could at least try not misguiding people into thinking that evolution was the only way.The thing is a fellow student in a science class of mine once told me he didn't even know there were any other theories,and that also he didn't even know that the idea that life had been around for millions of years wasn't proven.My point is that you can't expect people to know these things,and learn them from other sources.
and the ignorance shows again...actualy ID states that something made us and the most common idea of ID is the we were made of E.T.s
Pardon me? Have you even done anything related to ID? Do you actually know what it is referring to, or read books about ID?
That is NOT the most common idea of ID. That is a separate theory all together. And your response doesn't even have anything to do with what I was saying in what you quoted.
The definition of Evolution is "Change over time". THAT is all it is. It also explains how species become better suited to their environments. As for a purpose, it is just a purpose as any other religious purpose is: to get other people to believe in it. Evolution is true, whether you believe it so or not, and the users that are religious will agree with me in this.
Have we not become smarter over the thousands of years? Stronger? Taller even? All this is all because of Evolution, that we become better over time by the exchanging of phenotypes. Back in the 1800s, it was considered a miracle for a person to become higher than 5'6". Abraham Lincoln was over 6 feet tall. Now, in the present time, the majority of heights is around 5'8", and more and more of us are getting over 6 feet tall, and our current miracle is over 7 feet tall.
no its dna changing thats NEVER EVER happened while we have studied science
the next paragraph is pretty easy to answer...first more people=more taller and smarter people...and why are we smarter?like i said mainly because more people also information is much easier to transfer information
Pardon me? Have you even done anything related to ID? Do you actually know what it is referring to, or read books about ID?
That is NOT the most common idea of ID. That is a separate theory all together. And your response doesn't even have anything to do with what I was saying in what you quoted.
actaualy yes and its not that god made us because..are u ready for this?thats creationism!whoa revelation
You must be logged in to post a reply!