Teaching Evolution...

[SPQR 0]

It is obvious that many here do not accept the theory of evolution, but would anyone here go so far as to ban its teaching in public schools, like the town of Dayton, Tennesse did in the 1920s?

 

Or do most here support the teaching of creationism/I.D. alongside the teaching of evolution?

 

Just curious.

[Patches 0]

The problem is that most of the non-acceptance of evolution stems from ignorance. The majority of the arguments I've seen against it painfully illustrate that the arguer doesn't even understand what they're arguing against. And banning the teaching of it will just feed that ignorance.

 

I don't care if people don't accept evolution, but I'd feel better about them rejecting it with full knowledge of what it says.

 

As far as ID, that's been legally defined as not fit for public schools, anyway, since the Dover, Pennsylvania court found it to be a pseudo-science on par with astrology and alchemy. Not to mention the idea itself provides no worthwhile information to the professional field.

 

People seem to forget that school is a preparation for the working world. You get twelve years of introductions to pretty much every conceivable field, then you go to college based on what you were exposed to in primary school that interested you the most. Therefore, evolution is something necessary to know for a career in biology or a related field. Creationism is only useful knowledge if you want to be a priest. And government-run schools don't train you to be priests, since why would they pay to train anyone to be something that they can't get their money back from later?

[Dave 25]

It is obvious that many here do not accept the theory of evolution, but would anyone here go so far as to ban its teaching in public schools, like the town of Dayton, Tennesse did in the 1920s?

 

  Or do most here support the teaching of creationism/I.D. alongside the teaching of evolution?

 

  Just curious.

7809[/snapback]

Hi SPQR,

 

First thing we need to do is make sure you are asking about evolution in the non-equivocating sense as the rules of this board require. I'll assume you are referring to teaching as a fact the theory of molecules-to-man progression through naturalistic-only means. You might argue that most scientists won't go so far as to say it is officially a proven fact, but if I have to I could point you to 100 school textbooks that say it is. So, I believe that is the operative factor here.

 

With that out of way, we need to decide what should be taught to impressionable young minds who find themselves trapped in the government's compulsory education programs.

 

There are two ways to go about it.

 

First, consider for a moment what it would be like in some perfect world if the government schools weren't practicing the tenets of secular humanism to the exclusion of other religious worldviews, that they weren't in dogmatic lockstep with the post-modernistic worldview that has brought us "evolution as fact." Say that schools taught science objectively, basing it on correct interpretation of the available evidence without thought to the stigma and marginalization as it occurs today when "God" enters the picture.

 

I know, it can't happen. But, for purposes of your question ...

 

Here is how science would be taught under those conditions.

 

1. In a typical day's one-hour science class session, about 45 minutes would be spent studying science, operational science, which is basically the science that most scientists agree about, whether they are Bible-believing scientists or materialistic-only scientists.

 

2. Then, about 12 minutes would be spent teaching origins science. The materialistic-only theories would be dismissed for a lack of objective evidence, and students would learn the wonderful truth of how the world has come to be the way it is today following creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc.

 

3. Then, the last three minutes would be spent reviewing Darwin's and the Neo's theories of evolution along with other myths of origins, like Greek mythology, American Indian legends and such as that. These wouldn't be taught for their education value, but as a warning to children that when they step away from objective reality, they open themselves up to becoming vulnerable to all kinds of kooky ideas.

 

A second way is more realistic considering the absolute entrenchment of the secular humanistic reglion in schools today and its unlikelhood of ever being dislodged. That would be for schools to allow common sense in classrooms, and to consider teaching scientific objections to evolution. At the very least, textbooks should not proclaim evolution as a fact. They should remove the Miller-Urey experiments, or at least explain them for the failures that they were. They should remove Haeckel's drawings for once and for all (Yes! They are still appearing in textbooks today!). They should remove the monkey, ape, man progression drawing that has become a classic, but has no basis in fact.

 

Do I think there is a chance that any of this will happen? Not a glimmer of a hope. If anything, it's going to get worse. The best thing that parents can do to avoid the secular humanistic indoctrination is get their children out of the public (and most priviate) schools.

 

SPQR, thanks for asking. That was a good question.

 

Dave

[Patches 0]

1. In a typical day's one-hour science class session, about 45 minutes would be spent studying science, operational science, which is basically the science that most scientists agree about, whether they are Bible-believing scientists or materialistic-only scientists.

 

2. Then, about 12 minutes would be spent teaching origins science. The materialistic-only theories would be dismissed for a lack of objective evidence, and students would learn the wonderful truth of how the world has come to be the way it is today following creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc.

Except science, BY DEFINITION, is looking for naturalistic explanations for the world around us. I don't mind teaching origins in public schools, but that's more of something for a philosophy or comparative religions class. Not to mention associating the supernatural with science is very dangerous. You're just going to confuse them into thinking that everything in science is false and "God did it" is a valid explanation for everything. Not looking to the real world for answers means not being able to utilize the real world for solutions. Tacking theology onto math and science will pull us right back into the Dark Ages like it did with the Muslim nations.

 

3. Then, the last three minutes would be spent reviewing Darwin's and the Neo's theories of evolution along with other myths of origins, like Greek mythology, American Indian legends and such as that. These wouldn't be taught for their education value, but as a warning to children that when they step away from objective reality, they open themselves up to becoming vulnerable to all kinds of kooky ideas.

Kooky ideas like yours, huh? Seriously, I still don't understand what makes your origins story so much more plausible than everyone else's. Why does a snake coaxing a woman to eat an apple makes so much more sense than turning a wolf into a man or having the earth ride on the back of a turtle? I know you're probably going to say something like "because the bible said it's true", but you have to remember that all other cultures view your bible as fictional and mythological as you view their stories.

 

A second way is more realistic considering the absolute entrenchment of the secular humanistic reglion in schools today and its unlikelhood of ever being dislodged. That would be for schools to allow common sense in classrooms, and to consider teaching scientific objections to evolution.

Of course, bring on the scientific objections. I agree with you, that would be very helpful to teach. There really is no objection in the scientific community that evolution happens, most of the argument is over the mechanisms driving it. However, that's true with any science. We know gravity happens, we just don't know why. We know the universal speed limit is the speed of light, we just don't know why. And it's the tossing around of ideas to fill in the "why" that drives scientific progress.

 

It's sad that so many people are taking science for granted nowadays. They're content with their technology and medical advancements and seem to think that it's a given that technology will keep getting better and we'll find cures for more diseases. Unfortunately, they seem averse to actually teaching the science that is required for this to happen. ALL scientific advancements have occured because of materialistic thinking: that all things in the world are caused by things in the world.

 

You seem more obsessed with making people believe the same fairytales you do than actually teaching people something that will do them any GOOD. Teaching that life was magicked up in its current form is NOT going to pave the way for new medicines, new technology, or new scientific methods. Grovelling at the feet of a mythological being is not going to cure cancer, but biologists studying the causes of cell mutation might. And if you want biologists to cure cancer, then you have to teach people biology in school. And if you teach biology in school, then you have to teach evolution, otherwise biology is simply a set of discrete points with nothing tying them together. And making "God" that thing tying them together is useless in practice, because "God" is not something that can be observed, tested, or ultimately manipulated.

 

You can't play pick-and-choose with science, just like you can't play pick-and-choose with your Bible. You can't cling to the answers that support your worldview and reject the answers that don't. Science is a means for understanding reality, and sometimes it's going to tell you things that you don't want to hear. THAT is what children need to learn.

 

Because ever notice that the scientific discoveries most in dispute are the ones that go against what people want to hear? Wow, looks like you can crack an atom apart and release a ton of explosive energy! That's great, let's build a bomb! Wow, it looks like humans and apes share a common ancestor. Oh no, we don't want to hear that, it must be WRONG!

 

You people really, REALLY need to get out of the mindset that everyone who thinks differently from you has some sort of "evil agenda".

[Dave 25]

It's OK Patches. Take a deep breath. Nothing's changed. You've still got the Godless world of your own making. It's going to be the way it is now, or worse, until the end. So, you've got nothing to worry about ... except for where you spend eternity. But, that's between you and God.

 

SPQR's question was hypothetical. And my answer was hypothetical as well. Wishful thinking, mostly. So, no need to get upset.

 

Best regards,

 

Dave

[Patches 0]

It's OK Patches. Take a deep breath. Nothing's changed. You've still got the Godless world of your own making. It's going to be the way it is now, or worse, until the end. So, you've got nothing to worry about ... except for where you spend eternity. But, that's between you and God.

 

SPQR's question was hypothetical. And my answer was hypothetical as well. Wishful thinking, mostly. So, no need to get upset.

 

Best regards,

 

Dave

7814[/snapback]

Okay, I apologize. Sorry for getting all bent out of shape. I agree that the school system nowadays is in the dumps. We're coddling our kids so much that we're raising a generation of sissies and entitlement whores whose parents sue over a skinned knee on the playground.

 

In light of that, whether or not we teach evolution in primary school science classes doesn't seem like much of an issue. Kids really just need to be more prepared to stick it out on their own and face the real world once they finish school.

[SPQR 0]

Thanks for the responses.

 

And for the record, I think creationism/I.D. and religion in general have no place in public schools.

[Dave 25]

Thanks for the responses.

 

  And for the record, I think creationism/I.D. and religion in general have no place in public schools.

7816[/snapback]

I know, but how about honest, objective, evidence-based science? Should that be taught in schools?

 

Dave

[Dave 25]

Egads! SPQR, I just noticed that you live in Las Vegas. We live in the mountains of Central California and our thermometer just hit 100 degrees for the first time since we moved here a couple of years ago. Man, it's HOT! But, I couldn't even begin to imagine what Las Vegas must be like.

 

My condolences.

 

Dave

[Patches 0]

Thanks for the responses.

 

  And for the record, I think creationism/I.D. and religion in general have no place in public schools.

7816[/snapback]

Agreed. I actually think it's derogatory towards religion to force it into public schools. Isn't that somehow implying that your church isn't doing a good enough job?

[Patches 0]

I presume you're referring to the theory of evolution as opposed to fairy tales which one has to believe in since there is no evidence for them.  Absolutely yes. 

 

  Why wouldn't I want evolution taught?

7823[/snapback]

I still don't understand the idea that evolution takes so much more of a leap of faith than the other scientific theories that even creationists agree with. I mean, take these examples:

 

First, let's say we're looking at human chromosome number 2. Human chromosome 2 looks an awful lot like chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q placed end-to-end. Human chromosome 2 even has the remnants of a pair of telomeres (chromosomal "end points") at its center, along with the remnant of an extra centromere (chromosomal "midpoints") three quarters of the way up. From this, we could conclude:

A) Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q.

It's a bizarre coincidence that they look so much the same.

C) God created the 2nd chromosome to look that way on purpose to test our faith.

 

Now let's look at another scientific example. Say you hold an apple out in front of you and let go. You observe it fall and hit the ground. From this, you could conclude:

A) The mass of the earth exerts an invisible force that pulls nearby objects towards its center.

The pressure of a hundred miles of air above us pushes everything towards the ground.

C) It is God's will to keep us on earth before we ascend to Heaven.

 

Now, my question is, Which of these two scenarios takes a bigger leap of logic to answer? If we're so concerned about teaching our kids things that seemingly rely too much on hand-waving, maybe there are other things that should be deleted from science courses, too.

[Guest 92g]

Reduce what is taught about evolution to the small fraction of it that's emperical, and you will:

 

* truly be teaching science,

* never mention molecules-to-man evolution.

 

Terry

[Cataclysm 0]

I don't understand you people that claim students are ignorant if they reject evolution, since it's the only theory taught in public schools.

 

All should be taught as a theory, it is possible to be objective and just present the evidence for/against any one of them

[SPQR 0]

All should be taught as a theory, it is possible to be objective and just present the evidence for/against any one of them

7862[/snapback]

When you say, "all should be taught as a theory," what "all" are you referring to? Certainly you don't mean the creation stories of other religions.

 

The creation story as written in the Bible is not taught in public schools because it is not science. It relies on God and God is not falsifiable. All you creationists seem to be able to do is to point out either imagined holes in evolutionary theory or ask questions to which science does not yet have the answers. There is never any proof of the creation story as told in the Bible given. And if there is, I'd love to see it.

 

It has always seemd odd to me that creationists completely dismiss the origin stories of other religions ands civilizations while vehemently defending their own equally improbable tale.

 

P.S. It also appears that you have tragically misunderstood the meaning of the word "theory," at least its meaning in a scientific context. Fear not, Wikipedia to the rescue!

[Guest 92g]

The creation story as written in the Bible is not taught in public schools because it is not science.

Molecules to man evolution is not science, and you have no problem with that being taught in public schools.

 

It relies on God and God is not falsifiable.

Creation depends on God. The story about it from human perspective is a fornesic case, and is every bit as much verifiable as molecules-to-man evolution.

 

All you creationists seem to be able to do is to point out either imagined holes in evolutionary theory or ask questions to which science does not yet have the answers.

I'm not really sure what to call this type of commentary, but it is not in the spirit of good discussion. Please keep it off the Forum....(that's an imperitive).....

 

Terry

[thaiduykhang 0]

Evolutionism is wrong. Man has no right to err. So evolution to be banned from the country. Only Creationism should be taught.

[Springer 5]

Evolution has not aided in man's understanding of biology and has not provided any benefit to man. Thus, the question must be asked, "Why teach something if it has no benefit? You could have a class of various snowflake designs, but that would be pointless. There certainly is a lot out there to know, but why should we clutter our minds with that which we cannot use. The only other possible reason for teaching evolution is to affect our perspective of who we are.

Evolution's truth or fallacy obviously has huge philosophical implications, and that is the only justification that could be used for its being taught. It must be remembered that evolution is not being taught to benefit man, but to influence his perspective of himself in the universe. You can't just say it's valuable to know. The reason it's valuable is because of its philosophical/religious implications.

 

Teaching evolution is extremely dangerous, because, in the first place, the fallout from embracing the theory is huge. If one embraces the theory, it follows that moral values are relative and evolved as did man. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with murder, cheating on your wife, or whatever. Take a look at some of the literature being published. Rape is in our genes... our primate ancestors practice it. Man is programmed to be unfaithful... it's all part of survival of the fittest.

 

I would have no problem teaching evolution as a theory if it was done objectively. The reason I say this is because no rational being could look at the facts and conclude goo-to-you evolution is operational. The existence of a Supreme Being is so obvious to me from what I observe that I can only conclude that those who don't see it choose not to see it by willful blindness.

[SPQR 0]

Evolution has not aided in man's understanding of biology and has not provided any benefit to man.

Really? I guess The Royal Society, the national academy of science of the UK, doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published today (11 April 2006) by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science.

 

The statement points out that evolution is "recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world".

What exactly has creationism brought to the table of scientific knowledge? By your own logic, creationism shouldn't be taught because it has no benefit.

 

 

Teaching evolution is extremely dangerous, because, in the first place, the fallout from embracing the theory is huge.  If one embraces the theory, it follows that moral values are relative and evolved as did man.  Therefore, there is nothing wrong with murder, cheating on your wife, or whatever.  Take a look at some of the literature being published.  Rape is in our genes... our primate ancestors practice it.  Man is programmed to be unfaithful... it's all part of survival of the fittest.

First of all, I would like to see sources for, "some of the literature being published."

 

Second of all, merely teaching the theory of evolution does not change the fact that sometimes man can be a very violent animal.

 

But again, by your own logic, the bible should not be taught because of its numerous references to God's wrath: Matthew 10: 14-15, intolerance: Matthew 10:33, and objectification of women: Tim 2: 11-12. And that's just the New Testament.

 

So not only can the theory of evolution not be taught on its scientific merits, creationism can't be either. Also, the book on which your entire belief system is based must be thrown out too because its teaching has led to thousands of deaths and the belief that men are in some way superior to women, among other even more undesirable ideas.

 

10327[/snapback]

[Springer 5]

Really?  I guess The Royal Society, the national academy of science of the UK, doesn't know what they're talking about.

You haven't refuted anything I've said. You cannot point out one trace of anything that evolution has added to man's understanding of biology. Science is forced into the paradigm of evolutionary thinking. The facts of nature do not proclaim.

 

  What exactly has creationism brought to the table of scientific knowledge?  By your own logic, creationism shouldn't be taught because it has no benefit. 

I'm not arguing that creationism should be taught in public schools.

 

 

 

Second of all, merely teaching the theory of evolution does not change the fact that sometimes man can be a very violent animal. 

Nice rationalization. All I'm asking for is for you to point out how the teaching of evolution has benefited man or enhanced our knowledge of biology.

 

But again, by your own logic, the bible should not be taught because of its numerous references to God's wrath: Matthew 10: 14-15, intolerance: Matthew 10:33, and objectification of women: Tim 2: 11-12.  And that's just the New Testament. 

I'm not saying that it should be taught in public schools.

 

So not only can the theory of evolution not be taught on its scientific merits, creationism can't be either. Also, the book on which your entire belief system is based must be thrown out too because its teaching has led to thousands of deaths and the belief that men are in some way superior to women, among other even more undesirable ideas.

I've noticed that atheists have a contempt for religion. Thus, atheism is not a lack of religion, but is in fact a religion.

[SPQR 0]

You haven't refuted anything I've said.  You cannot point out one trace of anything that evolution has added to man's understanding of biology.  Science is forced into the paradigm of evolutionary thinking.  The facts of nature do not proclaim.

Darwin's theory was integral in developing hyoptheses about microevolution. Research into microevolution has brought scientists insights into the nature of bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics.

 

I'm not arguing that creationism should be taught in public schools.

Than what explanation for the development of life on Earth should be used?

 

 

 

 

I've noticed that atheists have a contempt for religion.  Thus, atheism is not a lack of religion, but is in fact a religion.

Not all atheists have a contempt for religion. This atheist has contempt for the deeds that have been done in the name of an invisible, omnipotent force. This atheist has contempt for most of the ideas proclaimed in a book which is the basis for your beliefs. This atheist has yet to see any evidence for the existance of any god and that is why this atheist does not accept the existance of one.

 

10335[/snapback]

[Springer 5]

Darwin's theory was integral in developing hyoptheses about microevolution.  Research into microevolution has brought scientists insights into the nature of bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics.

Firstly, antibiotic resistence in bacteria is microevolution and has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution. Secondly, the knowledge of antibiotic resistence has not depended one iota on a knowledge of evolutionary theory. We would know no less about it if the ToE were non-existent. If you disagree, tell me specifically what we've learned about antimicrobial resistence that we would not have learned without molecules to man evolution.

 

Than what explanation for the development of life on Earth should be used?

Certainly not a one-sided indoctrination that proclaims the absence of ID without a shred of proof. That is the antithesis of science. It would be far better and more intelligent to admit that we don't know the origin of life than to preach theories that are totally unproven. This is especially true when those theories have the potential to cause great harm to man's perception of himself.

 

 

Not all atheists have a contempt for religion.  This atheist has contempt for the deeds that have been done in the name of an invisible, omnipotent force.  This atheist has contempt for most of the ideas proclaimed in a book which is the basis for your beliefs. 

You are verifying my assertion that atheism is a religion.

 

This atheist has yet to see any evidence for the existance of any god and that is why this atheist does not accept the existance of one. 

You don't see evidence because you don't want to see it. Your contempt for religion and God is obvious. Have you ever read the Bible? Have you got on your knees and prayed to God to touch your mind and ask if he exists? Have you earnestly tried to follow his commandments as outlined in the scriptures? If you have not done these things, how can you say there is no evidence of his existence when you haven't even looked?

You cannot explain how life on earth began. No one can from a materialism/naturalism perspective. Yet you insist that it had to be without God, even though you haven't the foggiest idea how it could have been possible. This is because you chose to believe this, not because nature proclaims it to be true.

[SPQR 0]

You are verifying my assertion that atheism is a religion.

I fail to see how, especially since I made it very clear the opinions I expressed were entirely my own, not the views of every, single atheist.

 

You don't see evidence because you don't want to see it.

You can claim I don't see evidence because I don't want to see it, but in the same post say this:

Certainly not a one-sided indoctrination that proclaims the absence of ID without a shred of proof.

Amazing.

When you provide evidence for the presence of ID to counter the evidence that I and others have provided for evolution, I'll respond to that statement.

 

 

 

Your contempt for religion and God is obvious.

I know. I never said I did not have contempt for those things, at least religion. I have no contempt for god because I do not accept the claim that he exists. I cannot have contempt for something that does not exist.

 

 

 

 

Have you ever read the Bible?  Have you got on your knees and prayed to God to touch your mind and ask if he exists?  Have you earnestly tried to follow his commandments as outlined in the scriptures?

Yes, yes, and yes. That is why I'm an athiest, I realized I was not receiving any answers. Any more assumptions you would like to make about me?

 

 

 

 

You cannot explain how life on earth began.  No one can from a materialism/naturalism perspective.  Yet you insist that it had to be without God, even though you haven't the foggiest idea how it could have been possible.  This is because you chose to believe this, not because nature proclaims it to be true.

The theory of evolution does not even claim to explain how life on earth began. I certainly do have an idea on how it could have been possible, life beginning on earth that is, and so do many other people smarter than me in this world. However, the theory of evolution is not it. Have you even read The Origin of Species?

 

Firstly, antibiotic resistence in bacteria is microevolution and has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution.  Secondly, the knowledge of antibiotic resistence has not depended one iota on a knowledge of evolutionary theory.  We would know no less about it if the ToE were non-existent.  If you disagree, tell me specifically what we've learned about antimicrobial resistence that we would not have learned without molecules to man evolution.

I have an idea. Since I've read the bible, why don't you do a little research of your own and try to find the answer to your question? See if the evidence is really not there, or if you just refuse to see it.

 

 

 

By the way, you still have failed in producing sources for those pieces of "literature" you mentioned in your very first post in this thread.

10343[/snapback]

[Springer 5]

  The theory of evolution does not even claim to explain how life on earth began.  I certainly do have an idea on how it could have been possible, life beginning on earth that is, and so do many other people smarter than me in this world. 

 

No one has the slightest clue how life could have evolved on its own. The convenient divorcement of evolutionary theory from abiogenesis is only because when it became obvious that there was not continuity between life and non-life, the ToE hit a brick wall. They could not invoke natural selection on the evolution of pre-biotic life because there is no reproduction. Therefore, it was felt that seperation of evolutionary theory from abiogenesis was the only way to salvage the theory. You think the ToE is intact despite the fact that life could not possibly have formed on its own based on what we know from observable science.

You seem so certain that there is no God, yet you cannot provide any explanation of how life began without ID. Thus, you have faith that it was started by random molecular interactions. This faith is not based on any evidence... it is based on a lack of belief in a Supreme Intelligence.

[SPQR 0]

Thus, you have faith that it was started by random molecular interactions.  This faith is not based on any evidence... it is based on a lack of belief in a Supreme Intelligence.

I still have yet to see evidence for the existance of a Supreme Intelligence. What about that do you not understand?

10347[/snapback]

[Springer 5]

I still have yet to see evidence for the existance of a Supreme Intelligence.  What about that do you not understand?

10347[/snapback]

10359[/snapback]

The existence of life, which could not have possibly formed on its own. Why can't you see this as evidence of ID?