What do you believe? Do you think teaching evolution in Biology classes in high school is acceptible? Discuss the topic and your opinion, but please keep it clean.
At my high school we're taught evolution alongside the belief that the Earth was created by a diety. So I'm ok with evolution being taught in high schools.
Please don't turn this into a big argument about whether evolution is real or not. Thanks!
To finish my statement, I believe that evolution is correct, but God had to have intervention.
God does not need to intervene when the shuffling of DNA acts on its own.
here you go! You should watch this entertaining and informative video to show this origin of life (made easy). Again, this isn't debunking religion, but it solves just how the living came from non-living things.
Aaahhh... I think this guy should be everyones science teacher. Just like a billion kids in a classroom or something.
Was that a cry of glee, or a cry of fear? Either way, he does get the job done, and he is very funny in the process of it. And yes, I TOTALLY agree with having him with a billion kids, or at least the entire children of the U.S. all into one room, so he can pass on his knowledge.
[/offtopic-ness]
Now, why is it that children nowadays do not like having evolution in their classrooms? Is it because of influence, or because they are being fearful that they might strafe away from their current belief? Maybe things would be a tiny bit safer if every teacher that was teaching evolution would sign some sort of waver or agreement promising that they wouldn't degrade one's religion over Evolution.... of course, just like others said.
I think that since Science is still a scientific theory and not law, that the alternatives to should be presented to students. Teaching a belief that hasn't been wholly verified could be bad if evolution does, in fact, prove to be false.
The only reason evolution as an idea has survived for so long is because it is continually being refined by new developments and being affirmed by empirical studies. It would not survive over a century of scrutiny from the scientific community if it is flawed in a major way.
For example, we've actually recently observed bacteria evolving from one species to another. They shifted from consuming glucose to consuming citrate (which is not something e.coli does, ever) in very controlled circumstances - the proffessor running the experiment has frozen ''backups'' of the bacteria back through the last 20 years, and they're working on figuring out exactly where, when, and how this literally species shifting change happened.
In essence, we have a frozen timeline of a strain of bacteria evolving into a new species.
I'd also like to point out that by your standards, other beliefs and views shouldn't be studied either, as they are very far from being proven.
The Origin of the Species is the place where our learning about evolution started, not where it ended. From our modern perspective, it is almost entirely incorrect.
Really, this is the main problem with religious texts-they're where learning ends, not where it begins. Apologetics are a symptom of this; they start from the religion and try to figure out how to twist things so that the claims made by the religion match reality, whereas in science we start like something like On the Origin of the Species and change it so that it conforms with reality.
if evolution is going to be taught, it should be balanced with creationism.. not bringing my opinion of which is true, but because that is how things are kept in balance, you teach one without the other and things tend to progress down that train of thought.. but a balance is necessary
if evolution is going to be taught, it should be balanced with creationism... you teach one without the other and things tend to progress down that train of thought
What other scientific disciplines have to present different and conflicting theories? In chemistry, for example, we explain the bonding of different elements based on their properties. If someone started forcing teachers to also present the theory that elements bond because it makes Jesus happy, this would be preposterous. As silly as my example sounds, this is just how preposterous the notions of creation and intelligent design are. The evidence for evolution cannot be ignored, and shouldn't have to contend with magical beings that poof things into existence.
if evolution is going to be taught, it should be balanced with creationism... you teach one without the other and things tend to progress down that train of thought
If enough people believed that the Civil War was actually a homosexual conspiracy and never happened, would we have to teach that too?
not bringing my opinion of which is true, but because that is how things are kept in balance
The idea of 'balance' here is skewed. An example:
Say you have two hockey teams playing for the Stanley cup. Say.. one of them really sucks & the other one doesn't. Should we sabotage the 'good' team and put them on equal playing ground with the terrible team, or should they be judged on their own merits?
Just to note also so I'm not misunderstood: that was a rhetorical question. Of course they should be judged on their own merits. If there was another scientific theory, based on data & compelling evidence that came to a different conclusion regarding the origin of species, then yes, that should be taught along evolution in a science class & debated within the scientific community.
well i already took that class when i was in the 8 th grade and i am now in economy high school freshman i don't study biology but there weren't any debates about the evolution i didn't take sunday school i am am kid of science
As a few other people have recently touched on, the presence of two conflicting theories does not warrant the equal teaching of each.
We do not teach both chemistry and alchemy, astronomy and astrology, nor creationism and evolution.
Although Creationism is a position that many people hold dearly, it is a BELIEF, not a scientific theory. This is why I cringe when people say "I believe in evolution, not creationism." I do not believe in gravity; I "know" as well as I can know that it does.
Evolution is a scientific fact, regardless of how certain creationists want to spin it. We may not understand exactly HOW evolution occurs in certain aspects, but we know it does, period. Therefore, it gets taught in a biology class, no questions asked.
Until a creationist can provide a distinct, verifiable system of arguments that shows why Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and not merely a series of arguments construed to show the perceived flaws of evolution, it must sit far on the sidelines.
