NationStates Jolt Archive

Evolution: Why it Should be Taught in Public Schools, and Why No One Should Care

First let's define evolution. An observation made by Charles Darwin in the 19th century which stated that organisms would adapt to their environment and become the strongest there. As of late, there has been a lot of debate as to whether or not evolution should be taught in Public Schools. This has confused me. As you can see, I support it being taught, but I think many groups are going too the extremes, almost as much as the religious nut jobs trying to get it banned.

First argument for evolution, the theory of evolution isn't a law. The theory of evolution is an observation. Darwin saw 6 different finches on 6 different islands. Each bird had a different beak, most suited to the type of food on that particular island. Darwin saw this adaptation and decided to apply it to other animals with similar traits, like desert foxes having different sized ears compared to tundra foxes. Evolution is simply an observation that animals change, it doesn't say what created them, or even if something influenced our evolution. The same holds true for anything, my shirt is blue, that's an observation, so is evolution.

I know what you are going to say, that we were created by God, we didn't evolve from monkeys. But if we were meant to be caretakers of God's creations, what is to say that he did not create us, by taking another creation and giving it intelligence and a new appearance? Now you're going to say that God created all the creatures on earth, but humans have changed, there are many varieties of humans, so are God's other creatures forbidden to change if we are allowed to?

Second argument for evolution, suppressing religious rights will not be stemmed with teaching Creationism. Let us suppose that Creationism will now be taught in school, what kind of creationism? If you teach only Christian Creationism you are infringing on every other religion in the world's rights, because you are teaching a belief; as opposed to teaching an observation. So now you have given in to the needs of all the religious groups demanding their views be expressed, biology and science now become an entire course learning various cultures' creation myths. Teaching creation is abhorrently ineffective.

“Oh but our way is the right way, for we follow the path of God!” Yah, well all those other religions, they think they're right too, that argument doesn't hold up. In the words of Nietzsche, “faith proves nothing.”

Third argument, freedom of thought. This one, I'll help explain with a little short story:
Johnny goes to school and is taught that Communism can never be free, that it is a totalitarian state. Johnny knows the teacher is wrong, because he has read all about Communism. Like most students, Johnny doesn't want to fail Humanities, so he studies hard, learns all about economic systems and what they imply. Johnny passes Humanities with flying colours, and goes home knowing that the teacher was wrong.
As we can see in the story of Johnny, you can be taught something, you need to learn it to pass, but it doesn't mean you need to follow it. Same holds true for evolution, they don't need to follow it, they only need to know about it. They are still given the freedom of whether or not they choose to believe it or not. By removing evolution from schools, you are removing that right to choose.

“Oh, but I don't want my son's head being filled with heathen ideas that were spread by the Devil to distract him from the true path!” Congratulations, you are something called a Fascist, these are people who don't tolerate other people's ideas at all and want everyone to be a thoughtless drone, in doing do, you're a hypocrite. In other people's views, your ideas are also heathen ideas spread by whatever evil deity their religion believes to distract them from the true path. Again, in the words of Nietzsche, “faith proves nothing.” And if your Fascist mind can't handle this, there is a wondrous thing called private schools, namely religiously operated ones.

For these reasons, there should be no debate about whether evolution should be taught in public schools, as it obviously should, since there is no harm in doing so.

Hate to do this but *bump*

Come on people there's go to be some input in this forum.

The hypothesis of "evolution" is a wicked, abominable piece of absurd propaganda.

Evolution: Why it Should be Taught in Public Schools, and Why No One Should Care

First let's define evolution. An observation made by Charles Darwin in the 19th century which stated that organisms would adapt to their environment and become the strongest there. As of late, there has been a lot of debate as to whether or not evolution should be taught in Public Schools. This has confused me. As you can see, I support it being taught, but I think many groups are going too the extremes, almost as much as the religious nut jobs trying to get it banned.

First argument for evolution, the theory of evolution isn't a law. The theory of evolution is an observation. Darwin saw 6 different finches on 6 different islands. Each bird had a different beak, most suited to the type of food on that particular island. Darwin saw this adaptation and decided to apply it to other animals with similar traits, like desert foxes having different sized ears compared to tundra foxes. Evolution is simply an observation that animals change, it doesn't say what created them, or even if something influenced our evolution. The same holds true for anything, my shirt is blue, that's an observation, so is evolution.

I know what you are going to say, that we were created by God, we didn't evolve from monkeys. But if we were meant to be caretakers of God's creations, what is to say that he did not create us, by taking another creation and giving it intelligence and a new appearance? Now you're going to say that God created all the creatures on earth, but humans have changed, there are many varieties of humans, so are God's other creatures forbidden to change if we are allowed to?

Second argument for evolution, suppressing religious rights will not be stemmed with teaching Creationism. Let us suppose that Creationism will now be taught in school, what kind of creationism? If you teach only Christian Creationism you are infringing on every other religion in the world's rights, because you are teaching a belief; as opposed to teaching an observation. So now you have given in to the needs of all the religious groups demanding their views be expressed, biology and science now become an entire course learning various cultures' creation myths. Teaching creation is abhorrently ineffective.

“Oh but our way is the right way, for we follow the path of God!” Yah, well all those other religions, they think they're right too, that argument doesn't hold up. In the words of Nietzsche, “faith proves nothing.”

Third argument, freedom of thought. This one, I'll help explain with a little short story:
Johnny goes to school and is taught that Communism can never be free, that it is a totalitarian state. Johnny knows the teacher is wrong, because he has read all about Communism. Like most students, Johnny doesn't want to fail Humanities, so he studies hard, learns all about economic systems and what they imply. Johnny passes Humanities with flying colours, and goes home knowing that the teacher was wrong.
As we can see in the story of Johnny, you can be taught something, you need to learn it to pass, but it doesn't mean you need to follow it. Same holds true for evolution, they don't need to follow it, they only need to know about it. They are still given the freedom of whether or not they choose to believe it or not. By removing evolution from schools, you are removing that right to choose.

“Oh, but I don't want my son's head being filled with heathen ideas that were spread by the Devil to distract him from the true path!” Congratulations, you are something called a Fascist, these are people who don't tolerate other people's ideas at all and want everyone to be a thoughtless drone, in doing do, you're a hypocrite. In other people's views, your ideas are also heathen ideas spread by whatever evil deity their religion believes to distract them from the true path. Again, in the words of Nietzsche, “faith proves nothing.” And if your Fascist mind can't handle this, there is a wondrous thing called private schools, namely religiously operated ones.

For these reasons, there should be no debate about whether evolution should be taught in public schools, as it obviously should, since there is no harm in doing so.

Creationism vs. Evolutionism isn't just religion vs. science, it's science vs. science. The theory of evolution itself can prove itself to be wrong. Basically, Darwin came up with a theory, which he himself did not believe to be true. Atheists, looking for an excuse not to believe that God created us, found their pot of gold. Evolution, although completely wrong, can still be taught. Teachers should make both sides of the story evident, and allow students to make their own decisions.

Evolution = Crap.

Evolution rocks.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Educate yourselves pleazies.

Creationism vs. Evolutionism isn't just religion vs. science, it's science vs. science.

And here lies a person with no understanding whatsoever of the principles of science.

Evolution has scientific evidence to back it up.

Creationism does not.

Evolution=science=OK for schools to teach as fact

Creationism=myth/religion=Not OK for schools to teach as fact

(assuming that the schools in question are public.)

Evolution has scientific evidence to back it up.

True.

Creationism does not.

True.

Evolution=science=OK for schools to teach as fact

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory (as is everything in science) and should be taught as just that, the current theory.

Creationism=myth/religion=Not OK for schools to teach as fact

True.

(assuming that the schools in question are public.)

Yup.

And here lies a person with no understanding whatsoever of the principles of science.

No, I have no understanding of the priinciples of science, yet I'm in a senior physics class as a sophomore. Go figure. Several of the great minds in science are creationists.

No, I have no understanding of the priinciples of science, yet I'm in a senior physics class as a sophomore.

In the US? Chance are that you have no understanding of the principles of science.

Have you actually studied the scientific method? You *do* realize that it *requires* a falsifiable *hypothesis*, and examination of *all* evidence, and a willingness to change the theory with new information? Creationists start with an unchangeable conclusion and search only for evidence to back it up. In no way can this be considered science.

Besides, do you really want to argue this with me? Because I've got your education trumped several times over.

Go figure.

Yeah, go figure.

Several of the great minds in science are creationists.

Yes, which would explain why none of them can get their "science" published in a credible peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Creationism vs. Evolutionism isn't just religion vs. science, it's science vs. science. The theory of evolution itself can prove itself to be wrong. Basically, Darwin came up with a theory, which he himself did not believe to be true. Atheists, looking for an excuse not to believe that God created us, found their pot of gold. Evolution, although completely wrong, can still be taught. Teachers should make both sides of the story evident, and allow students to make their own decisions.

Evolution = Crap.

First of all the Darwinian model of evolution has been changed over the history of science, so ragging on Darwin himself is irrelevant. Furthermore, whether he believed in it or not is moot. The point is facts, evidence, whether something makes sense, and whether observations meet with the hypothesis. All of this is taken into account with the current model of evolution.
Now, I would very much like to hear how evolution contradicts itself. Thus far the best I've read is that the probability of significant mutation is too low to allow random mutation to have determined the evolution of species. While to my knowledge no one has ever proved this, I don't think anyone's ever refuted it either, which makes it something we should consider, though not take it as fact.
Also, please enlighten me as to the scientific evidence for creationism. I'm dying to hear it.

And by the way, I'm not an atheist. I am, in fact, Christian. Calling anyone who believes in evolution an atheist is so ludicrous it hasn't been done much since the Scopes Monkey trial. Please don't try to pigeonhole me. I for one don't think evolution contradicts my faith, and if it does yours, then that's your issue, not mine.

No, I have no understanding of the priinciples of science, yet I'm in a senior physics class as a sophomore. Go figure.
So...you don't understand what you're learning? Or do you just mean to say you have no understanding of biology? Because physics requires no knowledge of biology, but physics does indeed require a knowledge of the basics of physics.

No, I have no understanding of the priinciples of science, yet I'm in a senior physics class as a sophomore. Go figure. Several of the great minds in science are creationists.
I can tell you you are full of crap.

Sophomore in AP Bio (the hardest science in our school, maybe 20 kids out of a school that focuses on math and science). Physics is easy.

Creationism is a joke. Try to understand biology without evolution.

In the US? Chance are that you have no understanding of the principles of science.

Have you actually studied the scientific method? You *do* realize that it *requires* a falsifiable *hypothesis*, and examination of *all* evidence, and a willingness to change the theory with new information? Creationists start with an unchangeable conclusion and search only for evidence to back it up. In no way can this be considered science.

Besides, do you really want to argue this with me? Because I've got your education trumped several times over.
So...you don't understand what you're learning? Or do you just mean to say you have no understanding of biology? Because physics requires no knowledge of biology, but physics does indeed require a knowledge of the basics of physics.
I can tell you you are full of crap.

Sophomore in AP Bio (the hardest science in our school, maybe 20 kids out of a school that focuses on math and science). Physics is easy.

Creationism is a joke. Try to understand biology without evolution.

People, people, don't flame him! That's what trolls do. Let him (or her) explain themself and then we can make sense of it. Saying someone is stupid is no more convincing an argument than the one Haloman is making. In fact, it is far less convincing.

Physics is easy.
*Cough* Umm...no? Physics is easy at an elementary level, but gets really, really hard when you get to the more advanced levels. Pretty much true with all sciences, though chemistry may be arguable as easier...but only at certain levels, as I said before.

People, people, don't flame him! That's what trolls do. Let him (or her) explain themself and then we can make sense of it.
I wasn't flaming him. I was asking him to explain what he meant, because what he said made no sense at all.

The hypothesis of "evolution" is a wicked, abominable piece of absurd propaganda.

Hey the fundi is back!

Hey I know. Tell God to make an appearence and then all the Darwinists will convert on the spot!

Creationism vs. Evolutionism isn't just religion vs. science, it's science vs. science. The theory of evolution itself can prove itself to be wrong. Basically, Darwin came up with a theory, which he himself did not believe to be true. Atheists, looking for an excuse not to believe that God created us, found their pot of gold. Evolution, although completely wrong, can still be taught. Teachers should make both sides of the story evident, and allow students to make their own decisions.

Evolution = Crap.


No it's religion vs science. Faith vs the scientific method.

As to darwin not believing in it. If you are quoting the myth of the death bed confession so but his daughter denied the claim.

Evolution != Athiesm

Darwin himself was extreamly religious

No, I have no understanding of the priinciples of science, yet I'm in a senior physics class as a sophomore. Go figure. Several of the great minds in science are creationists.

I would bet most are theologans(sp).

Darwin himself was extreamly religious
Yet he wrote The Origin of Species... What does that say?

*Cough* Umm...no? Physics is easy at an elementary level, but gets really, really hard when you get to the more advanced levels. Pretty much true with all sciences, though chemistry may be arguable as easier...but only at certain levels, as I said before.

What he said!

Physics was easy at the elementary level. It gets worst as you go on.

So says an ex-physics major. ;)

Yet he wrote The Origin of Species... What does that say?

Ah he also took several years to do it. He did have problems with his theories. He was uncomfortable with them as to what they did mean. He took his time to make it as bullet proof as possible(for that time) and only released it when he got word Wallace was planning to release something similar.

Now what would have happened to evolution if Huxley wasn't around! ;)

If I had to pick a debating ability; I would want his! ;)

*Cough* Umm...no? Physics is easy at an elementary level, but gets really, really hard when you get to the more advanced levels. Pretty much true with all sciences, though chemistry may be arguable as easier...but only at certain levels, as I said before.

Again, I am only talking about high school level, which I found to be rather easy (his level course) the AP bio/O chem courses are much harder.

I don't see why schools shouldn't teach evolution AND creationism. I go to a Catholic high school and my freshman year I covered both Adam and Eve and Darwin...what's the big deal? As long as you're not telling kids what they HAVE to believe, what's wrong with informing them?

They HAVE to believe Creation, thus that they should be saved.

They HAVE to believe Creation, thus that they should be saved.
I think that atheism thing pretty much ruled out being saved.

I think that atheism thing pretty much ruled out being saved.
Well, we cannot let others take the fall for it.

Hey the fundi is back!

Hey I know. Tell God to make an appearence and then all the Darwinists will convert on the spot!
He appears at the altar at Mass daily.

He appears at the altar at Mass daily.

Surely if he is omnipresent this statement is redundant?

Surely if he is omnipresent this statement is redundant?
He is spiritually present, but not physically except at the altar.

Ah he also took several years to do it. He did have problems with his theories. He was uncomfortable with them as to what they did mean. He took his time to make it as bullet proof as possible(for that time) and only released it when he got word Wallace was planning to release something similar.
Very true. I agree wholly. Though he did have down the common ancestor, which I don't believe that Wallace had figured out yet.

Again, I am only talking about high school level, which I found to be rather easy (his level course) the AP bio/O chem courses are much harder.
Well, you can't really judge him by what course he took. Every school is different, and the teacher does make a world of difference in the level of the class. And they may be harder for you, and easier for others. I personally don't find either too difficult. And yes, I do understand both. But I do agree, I doubt Haloman really knows too much, though I can't affirm that.

I don't see why schools shouldn't teach evolution AND creationism. I go to a Catholic high school and my freshman year I covered both Adam and Eve and Darwin...what's the big deal? As long as you're not telling kids what they HAVE to believe, what's wrong with informing them?
First, I hope they taught you neo-Darwinism, since genetics are pretty important. I am perfectly fine with public schools teaching both creationism and evolution. It's just that evolution belongs in the science classroom, and creationism in the comparative religion and scripture classes. They shouldn't overlap. This is fine in anthropology and history, however. But I am against creationism in the classroom, because it's not scientific.

He is spiritually present, but not physically except at the altar.


'Appearance' seems like a somewhat strange word to use here though: the bread and the wine still appear to be naught but bread and wine.

Is it possible for him to be physically present elsewhere?

You know, Darwin wasn't an atheist. He never questioned if there was a God or not, he simply questioned some of the details of creation in the Bible....

My mother teaches all theories in her classroom (evolution, Gaia, creationism..etc...) and allows the kids in her classroom to decide for themselves which they want to believe. She does however believe in evolution, as well as God creating the world....just not in 7 days.

So often she has children in her class that ask her (when she is teaching evolution) "Well don't YOU believe that God created the world?" to which she tells them to stay after school, since she won't discuss it in class.

I think all the theories should be taught since they are just that, theories. Let children decide for themselves what they want to believe.

No, I have no understanding of the priinciples of science, yet I'm in a senior physics class as a sophomore. Go figure. Several of the great minds in science are creationists.
Which means you probably haven't taken biology yet, which would be the relevent subject matter.

He appears at the altar at Mass daily.

Been to mass. Never seen him. Seen a priest telling bad jokes though.

'Appearance' seems like a somewhat strange word to use here though: the bread and the wine still appear to be naught but bread and wine.

Is it possible for him to be physically present elsewhere?
When He chooses to return in the next coming, of course, but it makes not any sense why one must wait for that over generations, when He is today physically present as close as the nearest Catholic Church, at the altare Dei.

Been to mass. Never seen him. Seen a priest telling bad jokes though.
You probably attended Novus Ordo... That's a common diagnosis for this problem.

You probably attended Novus Ordo... That's a common diagnosis for this problem.

Still, there are no credible reports of people seeing God (while sober). Unless supermarket tabloids are credible. It would be a big thing methinks, leaving atheism without a leg to stand on since God's existance would non-debatable.

Unless you were talking about the bad jokes. Yes, I'd blame Novus Ordo for that. Possibly, the easily bored audience as well.

Still, there are no credible reports of people seeing God (while sober). Unless supermarket tabloids are credible. It would be a big thing methinks, leaving atheism without a leg to stand on since God's existance would non-debatable.
At the altar, Christ is Present. His mother has revealed herself many times to many folks throughout the history of the Church as well.
Unless you were talking about the bad jokes. Yes, I'd blame Novus Ordo for that. Possibly, the easily bored audience as well.
Pathetic jokes, clown masks, guitar-playing priests, etc. (other aspects of the Novus Ordo) tend to lead to such a situation. The Body and Blood of Christ does not appear on the Novus Ordo table.

It seems to me that everyone is missing the key issue. It is not whether one viewpoint is scientifically verifiable, they both start with premises that cannot be scientifically verified. The most important issue in this debate/dialogue is where a person stands on the philosphy of science. Scientific reasoning is at its core that of cynicism, it stems from Rene Descartes mode of reasoning. If you are trying to prove or disprove God, science cannot do it, so please give up either way. Also to say that creationism is just religious then it is obvious you have not read much of the scientific literature they they publish, it is scholarly and honest oftentimes. With Darwinism, it is not pure science it is also a religious/philosophical paradigm with many of its adherents making claims about evolutionary thought being the end all of biological reasoning. In fact, the most current literature, especially in the fields of biochemistry and similar branches the ideas of evolutionary thought are being challenged, what you kids are being taught in high school is outdated. Would you please understand your premises before making comments on here, both groups seem to be just regurgitating what they have been fed all their lives. If you want to discuss what I think in more detail then let me know.

He appears at the altar at Mass daily.


Really? And I thought it was the drugs kicking in!

With Darwinism, it is not pure science it is also a religious/philosophical paradigm with many of its adherents making claims about evolutionary thought being the end all of biological reasoning. In fact, the most current literature, especially in the fields of biochemistry and similar branches the ideas of evolutionary thought are being challenged

You had my curiosity until that.

Details my boy.

First start with your background so we know where your comming from....

Really? And I thought it was the drugs kicking in!
Well you are not a Catholic, so...

Well you are not a Catholic, so...

Actually Roman Catholic......

Actually Roman Catholic......
Huh?

Scientific reasoning is at its core that of cynicism, it stems from Rene Descartes mode of reasoning.

The scientific method of falsification does not stem from Descartes: for him a "clear and distinct" impression of something was sufficient to prove its truth.

Huh?

Actually what I am a catholic

Did the whole 9 yards. Catholic schools, alter boy.....

Actually what I am a catholic

Did the whole 9 yards. Catholic schools, alter boy.....
Do you still know your alter boy prayers?

At the altar, Christ is Present. His mother has revealed herself many times to many folks throughout the history of the Church as well.
Well, sure, but people see many things when under the influence of hallucinogenic substances...

Scientific reasoning is at its core that of cynicism
...You mean skepticism. Cynicism is defined as either pessimism or believe that humankind is innately evil, selfish, and/or self-serving. And, just to clarify this, evolution actually was realised through science. It did not exist to the human mind before, but there were a few exceptional individuals who looked at things and thought "Now that can't be right..." and looked into it.

Well, sure, but people see many things when under the influence of hallucinogenic substances...

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Defensor Fidei]At the altar, Christ is Present. His mother has revealed herself many times to many folks throughout the history of the Church as well.QUOTE]

Yeah, in burned grilled cheese sandwiches that get sold on EBay for millions of dollars.

[QUOTE=Defensor Fidei]At the altar, Christ is Present. His mother has revealed herself many times to many folks throughout the history of the Church as well.QUOTE]

Yeah, in burned grilled cheese sandwiches that get sold on EBay for millions of dollars.
Relevance to this discussion?

Evolution has been proven. At least in some sense of the word.

Take for example lizards on a South American island. In the past these lizards had long flaps of skin (like a bat or flying squirrel) between their front and back legs. After humans came to the island and deforested it, the ocean winds constantly battered the lizards. Their "wings" were torn and tattered, and they were constantly swept from trees. A scientist was studying the lizards during this time and kept records of how genetic mutations in the lizards, causing more and more to appear with small or no wings, became more frequent.

If you really want me to dig through like 5 years of National Geographics to find the exact article I could, but it wouldn't be worth the time.

Although this is a rudimentary form of evolution, as I doubt a completely new species has been yielded, it does prove that "survival of the fittest" results in genetic changes in a species.

Also why does evolution have to completely nullify creationism? It makes a lot more sense to me that "God" would create a world, perfect for life to form, and then chuck micro-organisms into the mix to kick start things.

But then again, a big dude floating in the sky watching me all the time doesn't make any sense at all to me. So you could tell me "God" made us from a pizza that he left on the counter and we grew from the mold and it would sound about as reasonable as an other creation story.

Relevance to this discussion?

Relevance being, that I could piss in the snow and it could look like a big golden Virgin Mary that doesn't mean she appeared before me, it means that my pee happens to be in the shape of the Virgin Mary.

Relevance being, that I could piss in the snow and it could look like a big golden Virgin Mary that doesn't mean she appeared before me, it means that my pee happens to be in the shape of the Virgin Mary.
The Church would verify an apparition, not your "piss in the snow." :rolleyes:

I don't mean to butt my head in(leave it alone),and I usually avoid this kind of thing, but you all seem to be missing some key issues here.

First, the theory of evolution is actually pretty benign; it never said that the god of any religions were false. Why take offense to something that anyone of any religion can believe as an ammendment to their holy book? Of their own choice, of course.

Second, if the churches really are as righteous and correct as they try to make everyone believe, why are they worried? If a person is truely pious, they won't go against the church. So does the church doubt its own faith or something?

Third, there is more than just the one religion. Have some respect. "Do unto others as thou wouldst have others do unto you," y'know.

Finally, it's impossible to convince a religious fanatic of anything.
Seriously. :headbang:
That goes for athiests, too.

The Church would verify an apparition, not your "piss in the snow."

Oh, so we know that there have been apparitions because "the church says so?" :rolleyes:

Evolution has been proven. At least in some sense of the word.

Take for example lizards on a South American island. In the past these lizards had long flaps of skin (like a bat or flying squirrel) between their front and back legs. After humans came to the island and deforested it, the ocean winds constantly battered the lizards. Their "wings" were torn and tattered, and they were constantly swept from trees. A scientist was studying the lizards during this time and kept records of how genetic mutations in the lizards, causing more and more to appear with small or no wings, became more frequent.

If you really want me to dig through like 5 years of National Geographics to find the exact article I could, but it wouldn't be worth the time.
Ha! You don't need to come up with lizards on some obscure island to prove evolution! Pathogens and insects prove it all the time. Bacilli develop resistance to certain antibiotics if too small a dose if administered. The ones with a higher resistance to the antibiotic will not die off if the dose is too small, and the new strain will have developed a resistance. Evolution. Same thing with insects and chemical insecticides. It is everywhere, people just don't realise it.

Thus far the best I've read is that the probability of significant mutation is too low to allow random mutation to have determined the evolution of species. While to my knowledge no one has ever proved this, I don't think anyone's ever refuted it either, which makes it something we should consider, though not take it as fact.

I have heard this argument before. However, it is based in the (absolutely idiotic) assumption that the rate of mutation has always been exactly the same. Over time, organisms have developed "proof-reading" and "DNA-repair" mechanisms that would not have been there in the earliest life-forms. Therefore, the rate of mutation would have been much faster in the early lifeforms than it is in even the fastest multiplying bacteria today.

People, people, don't flame him! That's what trolls do. Let him (or her) explain themself and then we can make sense of it. Saying someone is stupid is no more convincing an argument than the one Haloman is making. In fact, it is far less convincing.

I neither flamed nor said anyone was stupid.

I don't see why schools shouldn't teach evolution AND creationism.

It depends on where you want to teach them. Evolution is science and thus should be taught in a science classroom. If you want to teach Creationism in a public school, it has to be in a comparative religion or history-type class where *all* creation stories from *all* religions (or at the very least, the major ones and any others that students/parents/etc. ask for) are covered.

My mother teaches all theories in her classroom (evolution, Gaia, creationism..etc...) and allows the kids in her classroom to decide for themselves which they want to believe. She does however believe in evolution, as well as God creating the world....just not in 7 days.

Is this in a *science* classroom? If it is, she should be fired for teaching bad science.

I think all the theories should be taught since they are just that, theories. Let children decide for themselves what they want to believe.

There is a *huge* difference between the word theory as it is used in layman's terms and a *scientific* theory.

I think all the theories should be taught since they are just that, theories. Let children decide for themselves what they want to believe.


Hmm. So we should teach the old ideas with the new. So we'll teach kids the Earth is flat, alongside the proven theory that it's not. So we'll teach kids about the Celestial Spheres, the Ptolemaic view of the universe with the Earth at the center of everything, and then we'll teach them the proven theory that the Earth goes around the Sun, and the Sun itself isn't in the middle of the universe.

Good idea. Kids weren't stupid enough watching TV.

It is not whether one viewpoint is scientifically verifiable, they both start with premises that cannot be scientifically verified.

It has more to do with scientifically *viable*.

Evolution is a theory formed from all currently available evidence.

Creationism is a foregone conclusion and Creationists only look at the evidence that they can make seem to back up their claims - they ignore all other evidence.

Also to say that creationism is just religious then it is obvious you have not read much of the scientific literature they they publish, it is scholarly and honest oftentimes.

Find me a *single* Creationist article in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

You won't be able to. Do you know why? Because it is poor science. One cannot begin with an unchangeable conclusion and then dig for evidence to back up that conclusion and call it science.

With Darwinism, it is not pure science it is also a religious/philosophical paradigm with many of its adherents making claims about evolutionary thought being the end all of biological reasoning.

The philosophical sides are individual and have nothing to do with the biological theory.

what you kids are being taught in high school is outdated.

Of course, what I am reading in current journals is not. Don't make assumptions here.

Would you please understand your premises before making comments on here, both groups seem to be just regurgitating what they have been fed all their lives.

I am talking about the very basis of science - the scientific method. One cannot start with an unchangeable hypothesis and ignore data - such would not be science, but it is *exactly* what Creationists do.

Why is there even a debate about this, or have I been transported back to 1900 without knowing it.

Talking as a European I seriously worry about the mental state of the ole US of A.

Why is there even a debate about this, or have I been transported back to 1900 without knowing it.

Talking as a European I seriously worry about the mental state of the ole US of A.

It won't be long. There are crucifixes on the walls of schools in southern Germany, put there by the government.

Won't be long now.

Is this in a *science* classroom? If it is, she should be fired for teaching bad science.

Indeed it IS in a science classroom. She's told to teach all the theories, she doesn't get to choose. Why should she be fired for teaching what the district has set aside as "science curriculum"? I would imagine it would be the other way around. She doesn't believe in the creationist theory, but she has to teach it.

Hmm. So we should teach the old ideas with the new. So we'll teach kids the Earth is flat, alongside the proven theory that it's not. So we'll teach kids about the Celestial Spheres, the Ptolemaic view of the universe with the Earth at the center of everything, and then we'll teach them the proven theory that the Earth goes around the Sun, and the Sun itself isn't in the middle of the universe.

Good idea. Kids weren't stupid enough watching TV.

Yea, that sounds like a great idea :rolleyes:
Again, she's just teaching what she's told to teach, I believe normally thats what allows you to keep your job...doing what your told? If she didn't mention creationism then she would have angry parents and admin. and if she didn't teach evolution she would still have to deal with the same. The district tells her what she has to cover that year in her classroom, she just has to decide how to present the material.

I'm not trying to argue for evolution (which I believe in) or against creationism (which I don't believe it), I was just trying to show the poster that evolution IS taught in schools, along with the other creation myths and theories. I'm sure if my mother had a choice she wouldn't teach the creationist theory, but would just stick to evolution. She deals with enough nut cases (like the "Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, just on different sides of the Earth" people) and I'm sure that mentioning the creationist theory in her science classroom, because it IS in her curriculum isn't that big of a deal.

Indeed it IS in a science classroom. She's told to teach all the theories, she doesn't get to choose. Why should she be fired for teaching what the district has set aside as "science curriculum"? I would imagine it would be the other way around. She doesn't believe in the creationist theory, but she has to teach it.

The Creationist theory is not science. If she has been told to teach it, she should teach it as what it is, bad science. Otherwise she is no different from a math teacher who teaches that 3+4=99 just because someone put it on a piece of paper for her. She obviously either does not understand science, or has no integrity.

The Creationist theory is not science. If she has been told to teach it, she should teach it as what it is, bad science. Otherwise she is no different from a math teacher who teaches that 3+4=99 just because someone put it on a piece of paper for her. She obviously either does not understand science, or has no integrity.

She doesn't teach it as science!!! She calls it a "myth", but just has to do what she's told. Shes teaches it for what it is, she talks about the fact that it has no scientific evidence to back it up. By the way, whats your degree in? I'm just curious....

Over time, organisms have developed "proof-reading" and "DNA-repair" mechanisms that would not have been there in the earliest life-forms. Therefore, the rate of mutation would have been much faster in the early lifeforms than it is in even the fastest multiplying bacteria today.
W00t for DNA polymerase! But I have to say that retroviruses probably have the highest mutation rate of anything. Ever.

Talking as a European I seriously worry about the mental state of the ole US of A.
As well as you should.

She doesn't teach it as science!!! She calls it a "myth", but just has to do what she's told. Shes teaches it for what it is, she talks about the fact that it has no scientific evidence to back it up.

Well then, that wouldn't be teaching it as a valid scientific theory, which is what you said up above.

By the way, whats your degree in? I'm just curious....

I have a B.S. in Biomedical Engineering and am working towards a Ph.D. in Bioengineering.