Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104851 |
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
i hate being taught religious studies at school it bores me IDC i dont believe in it and i have to sit there listing about random crap its so annoying and boring
i hate being taught religious studies at school it bores me IDC i dont believe in it and i have to sit there listing about random crap its so annoying and boring
I love being in theology class with kids like you!
Ahh, that takes me back - I debated almost all of them into the ground and quite a few of them turned from Christians into Atheists.
Erm...Secondary education is grades 6-12
Touche. Personally I consider all mandatory education to be 'rimary', hence k-12 is, in my opinion, primary education.
I don't believe that we will ever truely be able to prove that either one is true at any point, so I'd say that offering "religion-related" courses in high-school should be legal if people would like to hear an alternative to evolution. Also, learning other people's opinions shouldn't be too offensive, I think it's healthy to learn all of the options that are out there and make your own choice.
Touche. Personally I consider all mandatory education to be 'rimary', hence k-12 is, in my opinion, primary education.
Oh dear. If Creationism was taught mandatory in elementary education....God help us all, no pun intended. I mean, children at that age are impressionable....
I don't believe that we will ever truely be able to prove that either one is true at any point
Really? Because we've already proven evolution is true. It's a fact. It's real. You can disagree with is all you want but that doesn't mean it's not true. In fact we have more proof that evolution is a fact than we do for gravity, and I don't hear anyone debating gravity...
I'd say that offering "religion-related" courses in high-school should be legal if people would like to hear an alternative to evolution.
There is no 'alternative' to evolution. That's like saying that the 'stork theory' is an alternative to sexual reproduction.
I think it's healthy to learn all of the options that are out there and make your own choice.
I agree, however when dealing with education on factual subjects we need to stick to reality. Creationism, religion, and related topics are not the realm of fact, they are the realm of superstition and have no place in science coursework.
I don't believe that we will ever truely be able to prove that either one is true at any point,
What evidence would you require to prove evolution?
so I'd say that offering "religion-related" courses in high-school should be legal if people would like to hear an alternative to evolution.
religion is as much an alternative to science as Lord Of The Rings is an alternative to history.
Also, learning other people's opinions shouldn't be too offensive, I think it's healthy to learn all of the options that are out there and make your own choice.
This I can agree with though as Walker stated one should have the skills to properly use critical thinking skills, so facts should come first.
To prove evolution to me you'd need to prove how life started basically, i.e. Using scientific method, create life out of nothing basically.
Religion isn't an alternative to science and science isn't an alternative to religion, they're two different entities. That's why courses on both should be required.
Facts should come first. 2-2=0 is a fact. The capital of California is Sacramento is a fact. Evolution is a theory.
To prove evolution to me you'd need to prove how life started basically, i.e. Using scientific method, create life out of nothing basically.
Evolution and Abiogenesis are two different theories. Evolution is not the same as Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis deals with how non-living materials became living things - Evolution does not.
Religion isn't an alternative to science and science isn't an alternative to religion, they're two different entities. That's why courses on both should be required.
Not when it comes to science classes and other classes that rely on scientific evidence. You're right, religion is not an alternative to science and should not be taught as such.
Facts should come first. 2-2=0 is a fact. The capital of California is Sacramento is a fact. Evolution is a theory.
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for a real world observation, these include explanations and predictions that can be tested. Usually, theories are large bodies of work that has resulted from many contributors and are often built up over time. They unify the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example; biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world, and if the predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).
If you want facts though - Coomon Descent - proof of Evolution and The Fossil Record - again, proof of Evolution.
To prove evolution to me you'd need to prove how life started basically, i.e. Using scientific method, create life out of nothing basically.
That is not even what evolution addresses. You are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. A common mistake among laypersons.
Facts should come first. 2-2=0 is a fact. The capital of California is Sacramento is a fact. Evolution is a theory.
Evolution is also a fact. You see, in science, a theory is the highest level of confidence one can bestow upon a principle. Gravity is also a 'theory'. Scientific theories are comprised of facts and laws, so in science a theory IS a fact.
To prove evolution to me you'd need to prove how life started basically, i.e. Using scientific method, create life out of nothing basically.
please refer back to page 54 where I explain evolution. Considering this you have no excuse for this misconception.
Evolution is a theory.
changes in allele frequencies in populations over generations have been observed.
To prove evolution to me you'd need to prove how life started basically, i.e. Using scientific method, create life out of nothing basically.
It is possible:Miller-Urey-Experiment
It is possible:Miller-Urey-Experiment
There's also this neat experiment where it shows RNA polymers could form on there own.
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=5277
We've also created our own synthetic life form.
Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life
Back to page 56, I meant that I don't believe in the Big Bang theory. I want to see what you guys think about that, as in my opinion, it its what parallels creation. Evolution is what happens after.
There is scientific evidence about creation, which means it is relating to science. For example, look at Mt. St. Helens in Washington. Its environment is rebuilding way faster than scientific models about how long things take to form show. That could be major evidence of creation.
You must be logged in to post a reply!