First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Evolution and Creationism in School
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/7/09 , edited 1/7/09

the_glob wrote:

By repeating yourself you showed you failed to grasp where i was pointing to, If also showed that you thought i failed to understand your initial point. If i thought you were stupid. i would have to spend time writing longer posts, of which i have no interest other than to prevent some religious nuts from spreading ignorance


The truth is that I thought you were affirming my initial point but I had no idea why you would do so. Clearly I misunderstood you, a possibility I brought up in the last post. Again, however, you refrain from explaining yourself. Either do so or drop this...


Again you miss the point. When you take the responsibility of something out of someone (in this case the parent), that someone should not be held responsible any longer. You said home school, i pointed out the taxpayers pay for the education, you said other subjects would have the same problem. I pointed out that the circiculum must pass an important test. Public acceptance. If you paused to think on a different track rather than heading on a one way street, you would have got it.


If you stopped being so condescending (as I notice you often are in your discussions on this website), you might see that I addressed those issues somewhat in the last post. I said I'm not convinced that decisions on the curriculum should be left to the majority and that I might favor a more powerful government than yours. The problem of responsibility you mention is not a universal principle in practice. The money by which we fund the government is used in all sorts of systems in ways we do not know and sometimes have no business of knowing. We neither vote on every decision made nor for every individual who will make these decisions. Just because we pay for something doesn't mean we have or should have complete control over it, at least not in my opinion.

But let's simplify. This can really come down to whether or not there is an objective social value to education that transcends parental opinion. If so, given that education must be funded, it makes sense to continue the tax even if the taxpayers do not decide the curriculum. What I propose is in the interests of the students, their society, and the world--each of which I believe is more important than the pride, prejudice, ignorance, or fear of parents.

Would it make sense for a parent to keep a child from learning languages and math for religious reasons? He will grow up and need to get a job to support himself and any family he has, but what sort of career and life await him? Depending on the extent to which information is controlled, parents can severely ruin a child's life. I'm not saying that not taking a theology course in high school means we're all destined to have the most unsavory jobs and lead miserable lives, but the principle is the same.

Unless information can be found to be in some way objectively destructive (like the class on making bombs mentioned before) or useless/unnecessary (Solving Jigsaw Puzzles 101) to society, I think it has a place in education. This opens up many more doors than can be entered in K-12 education, of course, but this is already the case.

An alternative to an actual course in theology would be to cover it in some other course, perhaps history or sociology. I had an overview of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism in 9th grade in a "world history" class, but its brevity made it unmemorable and, therefore, useless.
34 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/09 , edited 1/7/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Do you think that public schools should teach creationism as well as evolution? Some people feel that it is inappropriate to only introduce children to one side of the debate. How do you feel?

I think high schools and middle schools should provide an elective class in theology. That way the option of introducing your child to creationism as well as evolution is available. It's a moderate compromise that leaves everyone happy.


Mt problem with your proposal is that is not possible for an average high school to offer classes in every sort of theology which exists. It is unfair to offer a class funded by taxpayer by money on Christianity if you can't do the same with Zoroastrianism. I think this view is inline with the SCOTUS ruling that if you allow one religious club in a high school you must allow any sort of religious club. When dealing with classes, if you can't offer my Bokonism class or section of class then that makes me angry. I just think it is unlikely that a teacher could be an expert on every religion so he could cover them all.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/8/09 , edited 1/8/09

Underwriter wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Do you think that public schools should teach creationism as well as evolution? Some people feel that it is inappropriate to only introduce children to one side of the debate. How do you feel?

I think high schools and middle schools should provide an elective class in theology. That way the option of introducing your child to creationism as well as evolution is available. It's a moderate compromise that leaves everyone happy.


Mt problem with your proposal is that is not possible for an average high school to offer classes in every sort of theology which exists. It is unfair to offer a class funded by taxpayer by money on Christianity if you can't do the same with Zoroastrianism. I think this view is inline with the SCOTUS ruling that if you allow one religious club in a high school you must allow any sort of religious club. When dealing with classes, if you can't offer my Bokonism class or section of class then that makes me angry. I just think it is unlikely that a teacher could be an expert on every religion so he could cover them all.


Don't we have the same problem in every class? We can't learn everything there is to know about everything in one year. Even a class on world history in high school only offers a very superficial account of the histories of "major nations." Why not simply teach the major world religions and remind everyone that, as with philosophy and culture, there are far more religions (and denominations therein) than can be taught in one class?

Withholding information simply because not all information can be conveyed makes no sense to me. People should be less sensitive about their beliefs.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/8/09
Creationism should not be taught because it is pseudo-belief posing as religion. Evolution (science) and creationism (religion) ought to be treated as different subjects.
34 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

Regulus133 wrote:



Don't we have the same problem in every class? We can't learn everything there is to know about everything in one year. Even a class on world history in high school only offers a very superficial account of the histories of "major nations."

Your problem is that you assume that religion is in the same category as science or history. I think that it is quite clear that subjective religious beliefs are not the same as verifiable facts. You can argue otherwise, but in the United States both federal and state governments are supposed to treat religion in a certain way. When you have a class which is teaching religious content that would seem to be an endorsement, or at least an acknowledgment, that the religions the class would teach are "more important". You can't do that in the United States because it is an endorsement of certain religions.



Why not simply teach the major world religions and remind everyone that, as with philosophy and culture, there are far more religions (and denominations therein) than can be taught in one class?
Because it is unfair to those who are not part of major religions. As I already said, this is also consistent with previous SCOTUS rulings on separation of church and state.



Withholding information simply because not all information can be conveyed makes no sense to me. People should be less sensitive about their beliefs.

The last time I checked anyone who wants to can use google to find out anything they want about major religions. The information is hardly "withheld". People just don't care about the information.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/8/09 , edited 1/8/09

Underwriter wrote:

Your problem is that you assume that religion is in the same category as science or history. I think that it is quite clear that subjective religious beliefs are not the same as verifiable facts. You can argue otherwise, but in the United States both federal and state governments are supposed to treat religion in a certain way. When you have a class which is teaching religious content that would seem to be an endorsement, or at least an acknowledgment, that the religions the class would teach are "more important". You can't do that in the United States because it is an endorsement of certain religions.


Yes, it is quite clear that "subjective religious beliefs" are not verifiable, but that is not an issue here. That certain people have these beliefs IS verifiable, and this is what would be taught. A theology class would not be telling students which religion to believe. There is no endorsement but what overly sensitive people perceive there to be, especially when multiple religions that cannot all be true are being taught.

Also, labeling certain religions as "major world religions" is not the same as labeling them "more important" than others. It is simply a verifiable observation that there are high percentages of people in the world who believe in certain religions.


Because it is unfair to those who are not part of major religions. As I already said, this is also consistent with previous SCOTUS rulings on separation of church and state.


I do not agree that it is unfair to them. At the very least, I do not agree that the benefit of including this in education is outweighed by the supposed injustice of leaving out lesser-known religions. With your logic, wouldn't it be unfair (not unconstitutional) to teach only specific histories and cultures? After all, the classroom may contain children from uncovered cultural backgrounds.


The last time I checked anyone who wants to can use google to find out anything they want about major religions. The information is hardly "withheld". People just don't care about the information.


This is true for basically any class I took in K-12 education; therefore, it is not a useful argument against the class.

34 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

Regulus133 wrote:

[
Yes, it is quite clear that "subjective religious beliefs" are not verifiable, but that is not an issue here. That certain people have these beliefs IS verifiable, and this is what would be taught. A theology class would not be telling students which religion to believe.
Let's say I am a judge. If I put up a sign in a courthouse proclaiming that I love Jesus the that is not telling people what to believe yet it is still a violation of the separation of church and state. The fact such a class is not designed to convert people is irrelevant.


There is no endorsement but what overly sensitive people perceive there to be, especially when multiple religions that cannot all be true are being taught.
I suppose I am over sensitive because I see as an endorsement. You are choosing which religions to include-this is not something which is can be ignored.






Also, labeling certain religions as "major world religions" is not the same as labeling them "more important" than others. It is simply a verifiable observation that there are high percentages of people in the world who believe in certain religions.
But the fact that you include the ones with the most members makes a clear statement that these religions are what people need to know about. They are more important to the class because more people "need" to learn about them in school.








I do not agree that it is unfair to them. At the very least, I do not agree that the benefit of including this in education is outweighed by the supposed injustice of leaving out lesser-known religions.
With your logic, wouldn't it be unfair (not unconstitutional) to teach only specific histories and cultures? After all, the classroom may contain children from uncovered cultural backgrounds.
I do not think that doing so with cultures and nations is the same because America is a nation and a culture. There is no inherent unfairness in teaching classes about cultures that relate to ours or focusing on our own. If people from other cultures choose to come to America they are making a decision which makes America their home. They become Americans so they have no right to complain.




This is true for basically any class I took in K-12 education; therefore, it is not a useful argument against the class.
I agree. I just wanted to point out that it is not like we are actually withholding information from any student who wishes to learn about religion.

1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/8/09 , edited 1/9/09

Underwriter wrote:

I suppose I am over sensitive because I see as an endorsement. You are choosing which religions to include-this is not something which is can be ignored.

But the fact that you include the ones with the most members makes a clear statement that these religions are what people need to know about. They are more important to the class because more people "need" to learn about them in school.


When the purpose of the class is to teach students about other people to, say, improve relations, the importance of "major world religions" over lesser-known ones is clear and, if this reason is accepted, uncontroversial. But I recognize that, at least right now, this reason would not be accepted...


I do not think that doing so with cultures and nations is the same because America is a nation and a culture. There is no inherent unfairness in teaching classes about cultures that relate to ours or focusing on our own.


In a global history course, however, this changes. Teaching the histories of only certain countries conveys the idea that they are more important than others, even if the reason is that they relate to us. If you say that is okay, I'm not sure how you can criticize teaching the religions that have the greatest importance to the world and, therefore, to us.

I think it's still a good point, perhaps even one to grant you without further discussion--but it's moot, in my opinion, in light of my response to the first quote. I guess we'll see after you respond.


I agree. I just wanted to point out that it is not like we are actually withholding information from any student who wishes to learn about religion.


No, but, if we are assuming that education is important and insist upon teaching information even when it can be found online or in a bookstore, we can still speak of the class in terms of withholding information. Left to our own devices from childhood, not many of us would come to have a good understanding of much of anything. Worse, many of us probably wouldn't care (you said this yourself concerning religion), so I'd say we need schools to establish foundations for and interests in various types of knowledge.
2140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 1/8/09
Evolution is really pretty much fact. That shit really does happen. It still happens.

My sister has to change acne medication every six months because the bacteria become immune to the shit. Thats evolution, its not a religion, its just scientific fact.

Why wouldn't they teach evolution in class? Thats like not teaching algebra because its a sin.
Its really dumb that people can't seem to be both religious and scientifically educated at the same time.
9587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Vancouver, Washin...
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

digs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hey, this is really impressive. We’ve had four brilliant opinions presented in a mature and adult way without a single flamer.


digs wrote:

I think neither evolution nor creationism should be forced in schools because both have theory status. I think there should be an optional course that discusses evolution and intelligent design (creationism) and talks about the evidence (both supporting and counter evidence) in both theories. As it stands now, evolution is a forced topic to be learned, it is introduced as fact, and no counter arguments are ever put into the text books nor are holes in the theory explained. I think there is an incredible evolutionary bias in schools, and in the pursuit of well rounded education I would advocate teaching both with their supporting evidence and counter arguments. Introducing one theory and calling it fact is not education, but rather indoctrination.

P.S. I believe creationism to be a science. There are institutes for intelligent design and Biblical creationism. Within the creationist theory there are sub theories (such as Biblical old earth, Biblical young earth, deistic creationism, etc...) Intelligent design is scientifically studied and scientifically analyzed. I would strongly argue that the study of intelligent design is a science.


Well, evolution as the source of life is a theory in the same sense that all historical ideas are theory. However, evolution itself is a part of every day life. One example is that I have a friend who raises cattle. His family has done this for generations. They breed their cattle with specific mates to acquire specific results. That’s evolution.

Now, do we know that humans evolved from primates? Not really, that’s a theory. Do we know that the original life forms evolved from primordial slug? No, that’s theory. But, we do know and can prove that evolution and natural selection both exist.






I am not saying don't teach what is true, it is good to discuss natural selection and genetics, but what I am mainly addressing is the theories of evolution (in that life came from proteins and created itself through energy and matter) and also about the origins of the species. I just think they need to remove the bias in schools and not address something as fact unless it is scientific law. They also need to address counter argument for all theories that they choose to teach on, I think this would truly be education and not indoctrination, it makes students critically analyze what information is being presented before them and make a judgment based (hopefully) on their logic and reasoning with the given data.


LOL evolution does not even say that we came from a protein...also if u want to take out scientific theories from text books, lets take out the general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Also, lets take out Newton's theory of gravity and all the other theories out there. Newton's thoery of gravity is not law, its just a theory. Intelligent design is coming off of the basis that we came from god. Darwin made a success of evolution that in order for a species to survive, one must adapt to its surroundings. THATS the theory of evolution....idk where u got the crap about how we came from proteins.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/8/09 , edited 1/8/09

hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hey, this is really impressive. We’ve had four brilliant opinions presented in a mature and adult way without a single flamer.


digs wrote:

I think neither evolution nor creationism should be forced in schools because both have theory status. I think there should be an optional course that discusses evolution and intelligent design (creationism) and talks about the evidence (both supporting and counter evidence) in both theories. As it stands now, evolution is a forced topic to be learned, it is introduced as fact, and no counter arguments are ever put into the text books nor are holes in the theory explained. I think there is an incredible evolutionary bias in schools, and in the pursuit of well rounded education I would advocate teaching both with their supporting evidence and counter arguments. Introducing one theory and calling it fact is not education, but rather indoctrination.

P.S. I believe creationism to be a science. There are institutes for intelligent design and Biblical creationism. Within the creationist theory there are sub theories (such as Biblical old earth, Biblical young earth, deistic creationism, etc...) Intelligent design is scientifically studied and scientifically analyzed. I would strongly argue that the study of intelligent design is a science.


Well, evolution as the source of life is a theory in the same sense that all historical ideas are theory. However, evolution itself is a part of every day life. One example is that I have a friend who raises cattle. His family has done this for generations. They breed their cattle with specific mates to acquire specific results. That’s evolution.

Now, do we know that humans evolved from primates? Not really, that’s a theory. Do we know that the original life forms evolved from primordial slug? No, that’s theory. But, we do know and can prove that evolution and natural selection both exist.






I am not saying don't teach what is true, it is good to discuss natural selection and genetics, but what I am mainly addressing is the theories of evolution (in that life came from proteins and created itself through energy and matter) and also about the origins of the species. I just think they need to remove the bias in schools and not address something as fact unless it is scientific law. They also need to address counter argument for all theories that they choose to teach on, I think this would truly be education and not indoctrination, it makes students critically analyze what information is being presented before them and make a judgment based (hopefully) on their logic and reasoning with the given data.


LOL evolution does not even say that we came from a protein...also if u want to take out scientific theories from text books, lets take out the general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Also, lets take out Newton's theory of gravity and all the other theories out there. Newton's thoery of gravity is not law, its just a theory. Intelligent design is coming off of the basis that we came from god. Darwin made a success of evolution that in order for a species to survive, one must adapt to its surroundings. THATS the theory of evolution....idk where u got the crap about how we came from proteins.


Actually it does, the theory of evolution blieved by most evolutionary scientists is that the proteins necessary for DNA and life formed with other materials and then received life somehow and thus the first single cell was born which became other organisms through evolution. At the very beginning of the theory it talks about how the first life form came to be (however it is flawed and not practical). I am not saying take theories out, I am saying give students a well rounded education, discussing the holes and unanswered questions to both evolution and intelligent design. right now they teach evolution as fact, and the don't talk about contrary evidence or unanswered questions. I would argue that this isn't a well rounded education, and to some extent it is indoctrination, not education.
9587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Vancouver, Washin...
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hey, this is really impressive. We’ve had four brilliant opinions presented in a mature and adult way without a single flamer.


digs wrote:

I think neither evolution nor creationism should be forced in schools because both have theory status. I think there should be an optional course that discusses evolution and intelligent design (creationism) and talks about the evidence (both supporting and counter evidence) in both theories. As it stands now, evolution is a forced topic to be learned, it is introduced as fact, and no counter arguments are ever put into the text books nor are holes in the theory explained. I think there is an incredible evolutionary bias in schools, and in the pursuit of well rounded education I would advocate teaching both with their supporting evidence and counter arguments. Introducing one theory and calling it fact is not education, but rather indoctrination.

P.S. I believe creationism to be a science. There are institutes for intelligent design and Biblical creationism. Within the creationist theory there are sub theories (such as Biblical old earth, Biblical young earth, deistic creationism, etc...) Intelligent design is scientifically studied and scientifically analyzed. I would strongly argue that the study of intelligent design is a science.


Well, evolution as the source of life is a theory in the same sense that all historical ideas are theory. However, evolution itself is a part of every day life. One example is that I have a friend who raises cattle. His family has done this for generations. They breed their cattle with specific mates to acquire specific results. That’s evolution.

Now, do we know that humans evolved from primates? Not really, that’s a theory. Do we know that the original life forms evolved from primordial slug? No, that’s theory. But, we do know and can prove that evolution and natural selection both exist.






I am not saying don't teach what is true, it is good to discuss natural selection and genetics, but what I am mainly addressing is the theories of evolution (in that life came from proteins and created itself through energy and matter) and also about the origins of the species. I just think they need to remove the bias in schools and not address something as fact unless it is scientific law. They also need to address counter argument for all theories that they choose to teach on, I think this would truly be education and not indoctrination, it makes students critically analyze what information is being presented before them and make a judgment based (hopefully) on their logic and reasoning with the given data.


LOL evolution does not even say that we came from a protein...also if u want to take out scientific theories from text books, lets take out the general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Also, lets take out Newton's theory of gravity and all the other theories out there. Newton's thoery of gravity is not law, its just a theory. Intelligent design is coming off of the basis that we came from god. Darwin made a success of evolution that in order for a species to survive, one must adapt to its surroundings. THATS the theory of evolution....idk where u got the crap about how we came from proteins.


Actually it does, the theory of evolution blieved by most evolutionary scientists is that the proteins necessary for DNA and life formed with other materials and then received life somehow and thus the first single cell was born which became other organisms through evolution. At the very beginning of the theory it talks about how the first life form came to be (however it is flawed and not practical). I am not saying take theories out, I am saying give students a well rounded education, discussing the holes and unanswered questions to both evolution and intelligent design. right now they teach evolution as fact, and the don't talk about contrary evidence or unanswered questions. I would argue that this isn't a well rounded education, and to some extent it is indoctrination, not education.


wow...u have no clue wat ur talking about...first of all...those theorists did not make the thoery now did they? Plus, evolution is not a belief, its a theory. If you have read biology books (which i can see u have not), they never mention that we came from monkeys, ur thinking of other theories. They do not teach evolution as a fact. It does NOT have anything to do with how we came from monkeys and how we came from protiens. They teach it at school because it tells how biology is suppose to work. Remember, all theories are not facts. They are theories, just cause its proven doesnt mean its a fact, it can still be dis proven.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hey, this is really impressive. We’ve had four brilliant opinions presented in a mature and adult way without a single flamer.


digs wrote:

I think neither evolution nor creationism should be forced in schools because both have theory status. I think there should be an optional course that discusses evolution and intelligent design (creationism) and talks about the evidence (both supporting and counter evidence) in both theories. As it stands now, evolution is a forced topic to be learned, it is introduced as fact, and no counter arguments are ever put into the text books nor are holes in the theory explained. I think there is an incredible evolutionary bias in schools, and in the pursuit of well rounded education I would advocate teaching both with their supporting evidence and counter arguments. Introducing one theory and calling it fact is not education, but rather indoctrination.

P.S. I believe creationism to be a science. There are institutes for intelligent design and Biblical creationism. Within the creationist theory there are sub theories (such as Biblical old earth, Biblical young earth, deistic creationism, etc...) Intelligent design is scientifically studied and scientifically analyzed. I would strongly argue that the study of intelligent design is a science.


Well, evolution as the source of life is a theory in the same sense that all historical ideas are theory. However, evolution itself is a part of every day life. One example is that I have a friend who raises cattle. His family has done this for generations. They breed their cattle with specific mates to acquire specific results. That’s evolution.

Now, do we know that humans evolved from primates? Not really, that’s a theory. Do we know that the original life forms evolved from primordial slug? No, that’s theory. But, we do know and can prove that evolution and natural selection both exist.






I am not saying don't teach what is true, it is good to discuss natural selection and genetics, but what I am mainly addressing is the theories of evolution (in that life came from proteins and created itself through energy and matter) and also about the origins of the species. I just think they need to remove the bias in schools and not address something as fact unless it is scientific law. They also need to address counter argument for all theories that they choose to teach on, I think this would truly be education and not indoctrination, it makes students critically analyze what information is being presented before them and make a judgment based (hopefully) on their logic and reasoning with the given data.


LOL evolution does not even say that we came from a protein...also if u want to take out scientific theories from text books, lets take out the general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Also, lets take out Newton's theory of gravity and all the other theories out there. Newton's thoery of gravity is not law, its just a theory. Intelligent design is coming off of the basis that we came from god. Darwin made a success of evolution that in order for a species to survive, one must adapt to its surroundings. THATS the theory of evolution....idk where u got the crap about how we came from proteins.


Actually it does, the theory of evolution blieved by most evolutionary scientists is that the proteins necessary for DNA and life formed with other materials and then received life somehow and thus the first single cell was born which became other organisms through evolution. At the very beginning of the theory it talks about how the first life form came to be (however it is flawed and not practical). I am not saying take theories out, I am saying give students a well rounded education, discussing the holes and unanswered questions to both evolution and intelligent design. right now they teach evolution as fact, and the don't talk about contrary evidence or unanswered questions. I would argue that this isn't a well rounded education, and to some extent it is indoctrination, not education.


wow...u have no clue wat ur talking about...first of all...those theorists did not make the thoery now did they? Plus, evolution is not a belief, its a theory. If you have read biology books (which i can see u have not), they never mention that we came from monkeys, ur thinking of other theories. They do not teach evolution as a fact. It does NOT have anything to do with how we came from monkeys and how we came from protiens. They teach it at school because it tells how biology is suppose to work. Remember, all theories are not facts. They are theories, just cause its proven doesnt mean its a fact, it can still be dis proven.


I never said anything about monkeys (I know evolution now believes that humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor)... I am talking about when life started and how most evolutionary scientists view that as happening. Most believe that the materials necessary for life came together and somehow came to life. The DNA in the first cell must have been made from proteins (as all DNA is). I am talking about the very beginning of the evolutionary process starting with the first cell to have emerged. Scientists who support evolution do think and know that the proteins had to be present for DNA to have been created. They teach evolution to try and explain the origin of the species. Biology and evolution are two different areas of science. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain how we have our current biology, and biology is the study of current living organisms. I am saying when schools teach evolution, they need to teach the holes and unexplained answers in the theory as well. To have a well rounded education, and also to do the same with intelligent design.
9587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Vancouver, Washin...
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hey, this is really impressive. We’ve had four brilliant opinions presented in a mature and adult way without a single flamer.


digs wrote:

I think neither evolution nor creationism should be forced in schools because both have theory status. I think there should be an optional course that discusses evolution and intelligent design (creationism) and talks about the evidence (both supporting and counter evidence) in both theories. As it stands now, evolution is a forced topic to be learned, it is introduced as fact, and no counter arguments are ever put into the text books nor are holes in the theory explained. I think there is an incredible evolutionary bias in schools, and in the pursuit of well rounded education I would advocate teaching both with their supporting evidence and counter arguments. Introducing one theory and calling it fact is not education, but rather indoctrination.

P.S. I believe creationism to be a science. There are institutes for intelligent design and Biblical creationism. Within the creationist theory there are sub theories (such as Biblical old earth, Biblical young earth, deistic creationism, etc...) Intelligent design is scientifically studied and scientifically analyzed. I would strongly argue that the study of intelligent design is a science.


Well, evolution as the source of life is a theory in the same sense that all historical ideas are theory. However, evolution itself is a part of every day life. One example is that I have a friend who raises cattle. His family has done this for generations. They breed their cattle with specific mates to acquire specific results. That’s evolution.

Now, do we know that humans evolved from primates? Not really, that’s a theory. Do we know that the original life forms evolved from primordial slug? No, that’s theory. But, we do know and can prove that evolution and natural selection both exist.






I am not saying don't teach what is true, it is good to discuss natural selection and genetics, but what I am mainly addressing is the theories of evolution (in that life came from proteins and created itself through energy and matter) and also about the origins of the species. I just think they need to remove the bias in schools and not address something as fact unless it is scientific law. They also need to address counter argument for all theories that they choose to teach on, I think this would truly be education and not indoctrination, it makes students critically analyze what information is being presented before them and make a judgment based (hopefully) on their logic and reasoning with the given data.


LOL evolution does not even say that we came from a protein...also if u want to take out scientific theories from text books, lets take out the general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Also, lets take out Newton's theory of gravity and all the other theories out there. Newton's thoery of gravity is not law, its just a theory. Intelligent design is coming off of the basis that we came from god. Darwin made a success of evolution that in order for a species to survive, one must adapt to its surroundings. THATS the theory of evolution....idk where u got the crap about how we came from proteins.


Actually it does, the theory of evolution blieved by most evolutionary scientists is that the proteins necessary for DNA and life formed with other materials and then received life somehow and thus the first single cell was born which became other organisms through evolution. At the very beginning of the theory it talks about how the first life form came to be (however it is flawed and not practical). I am not saying take theories out, I am saying give students a well rounded education, discussing the holes and unanswered questions to both evolution and intelligent design. right now they teach evolution as fact, and the don't talk about contrary evidence or unanswered questions. I would argue that this isn't a well rounded education, and to some extent it is indoctrination, not education.


wow...u have no clue wat ur talking about...first of all...those theorists did not make the thoery now did they? Plus, evolution is not a belief, its a theory. If you have read biology books (which i can see u have not), they never mention that we came from monkeys, ur thinking of other theories. They do not teach evolution as a fact. It does NOT have anything to do with how we came from monkeys and how we came from protiens. They teach it at school because it tells how biology is suppose to work. Remember, all theories are not facts. They are theories, just cause its proven doesnt mean its a fact, it can still be dis proven.


I never said anything about monkeys (I know evolution now believes that humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor)... I am talking about when life started and how most evolutionary scientists view that as happening. Most believe that the materials necessary for life came together and somehow came to life. The DNA in the first cell must have been made from proteins (as all DNA is). I am talking about the very beginning of the evolutionary process starting with the first cell to have emerged. Scientists who support evolution do think and know that the proteins had to be present for DNA to have been created. They teach evolution to try and explain the origin of the species. Biology and evolution are two different areas of science. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain how we have our current biology, and biology is the study of current living organisms. I am saying when schools teach evolution, they need to teach the holes and unexplained answers in the theory as well. To have a well rounded education, and also to do the same with intelligent design.


btw, that again is irrelevant to the fact of thoery of evolution...idk where u heard this crap but u again, are mis informed. >.> Anyways intelligent design is not scientifically proven. Also its part of religion. Have u heard something called church and state? Keep churches out of the state?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hey, this is really impressive. We’ve had four brilliant opinions presented in a mature and adult way without a single flamer.


digs wrote:

I think neither evolution nor creationism should be forced in schools because both have theory status. I think there should be an optional course that discusses evolution and intelligent design (creationism) and talks about the evidence (both supporting and counter evidence) in both theories. As it stands now, evolution is a forced topic to be learned, it is introduced as fact, and no counter arguments are ever put into the text books nor are holes in the theory explained. I think there is an incredible evolutionary bias in schools, and in the pursuit of well rounded education I would advocate teaching both with their supporting evidence and counter arguments. Introducing one theory and calling it fact is not education, but rather indoctrination.

P.S. I believe creationism to be a science. There are institutes for intelligent design and Biblical creationism. Within the creationist theory there are sub theories (such as Biblical old earth, Biblical young earth, deistic creationism, etc...) Intelligent design is scientifically studied and scientifically analyzed. I would strongly argue that the study of intelligent design is a science.


Well, evolution as the source of life is a theory in the same sense that all historical ideas are theory. However, evolution itself is a part of every day life. One example is that I have a friend who raises cattle. His family has done this for generations. They breed their cattle with specific mates to acquire specific results. That’s evolution.

Now, do we know that humans evolved from primates? Not really, that’s a theory. Do we know that the original life forms evolved from primordial slug? No, that’s theory. But, we do know and can prove that evolution and natural selection both exist.






I am not saying don't teach what is true, it is good to discuss natural selection and genetics, but what I am mainly addressing is the theories of evolution (in that life came from proteins and created itself through energy and matter) and also about the origins of the species. I just think they need to remove the bias in schools and not address something as fact unless it is scientific law. They also need to address counter argument for all theories that they choose to teach on, I think this would truly be education and not indoctrination, it makes students critically analyze what information is being presented before them and make a judgment based (hopefully) on their logic and reasoning with the given data.


LOL evolution does not even say that we came from a protein...also if u want to take out scientific theories from text books, lets take out the general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Also, lets take out Newton's theory of gravity and all the other theories out there. Newton's thoery of gravity is not law, its just a theory. Intelligent design is coming off of the basis that we came from god. Darwin made a success of evolution that in order for a species to survive, one must adapt to its surroundings. THATS the theory of evolution....idk where u got the crap about how we came from proteins.


Actually it does, the theory of evolution blieved by most evolutionary scientists is that the proteins necessary for DNA and life formed with other materials and then received life somehow and thus the first single cell was born which became other organisms through evolution. At the very beginning of the theory it talks about how the first life form came to be (however it is flawed and not practical). I am not saying take theories out, I am saying give students a well rounded education, discussing the holes and unanswered questions to both evolution and intelligent design. right now they teach evolution as fact, and the don't talk about contrary evidence or unanswered questions. I would argue that this isn't a well rounded education, and to some extent it is indoctrination, not education.


wow...u have no clue wat ur talking about...first of all...those theorists did not make the thoery now did they? Plus, evolution is not a belief, its a theory. If you have read biology books (which i can see u have not), they never mention that we came from monkeys, ur thinking of other theories. They do not teach evolution as a fact. It does NOT have anything to do with how we came from monkeys and how we came from protiens. They teach it at school because it tells how biology is suppose to work. Remember, all theories are not facts. They are theories, just cause its proven doesnt mean its a fact, it can still be dis proven.


I never said anything about monkeys (I know evolution now believes that humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor)... I am talking about when life started and how most evolutionary scientists view that as happening. Most believe that the materials necessary for life came together and somehow came to life. The DNA in the first cell must have been made from proteins (as all DNA is). I am talking about the very beginning of the evolutionary process starting with the first cell to have emerged. Scientists who support evolution do think and know that the proteins had to be present for DNA to have been created. They teach evolution to try and explain the origin of the species. Biology and evolution are two different areas of science. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain how we have our current biology, and biology is the study of current living organisms. I am saying when schools teach evolution, they need to teach the holes and unexplained answers in the theory as well. To have a well rounded education, and also to do the same with intelligent design.


btw, that again is irrelevant to the fact of thoery of evolution...idk where u heard this crap but u again, are mis informed. >.> Anyways intelligent design is not scientifically proven. Also its part of religion. Have u heard something called church and state? Keep churches out of the state?


Not really, it is a fundamental but whatever, that's not the main point. Intelligent design is scientific, there are research centers, and the theory does not designate a specific religion (although most scientists in the field are Christians). It merely believed that a higher power is responsible for creation. And church and state does not mean oppress the church. This is the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It means that the church does not and can not control the government, and the government can not control the church or restrict the free right to religion. It is not violating the Amendment to teach intelligent design because in no way is the church controlling the public schools, and they are also teaching evolution. It's a well rounded education that teaches what science has compiled through research and experimentation (both evolution and intelligent design).
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.