Teaching Evolution in School

El Pirata · #1 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 10:30 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ed...=1&oref=slogin

My view? Teach evolution in school and leave creationism teachings to the church. Plain and simple see?

**Opunaya** · 08-26-2008, 06:33 AM

I was taught neither in school.

If they teach one, they should teach the other. They teach you every other theory in the freakin' universe anyway.

RedRoseSpiral · 08-26-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya

I was taught neither in school.

If they teach one, they should teach the other. They teach you every other theory in the freakin' universe anyway.

Uh, no. Creationism isn't science. The Theory of Evolution is science. A scientific theory is different than your everyday theory. Here's a bit from a website that explains it well:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Wilson

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

LINK

Creationism is a product of the church and should not be taught in science classes. Our government is suppose to be separate from religion. If public schools were to start teaching Creationism in school then it should be expected of them not to teach it in a science class but in a class that goes over other creation stories from other religions and cultures. There is no scientific proof, or at least no scientific proof that doesn't have a ton of holes or is from information that has found to be invalid, that Creationism is real.

So unless Creationism is being taught in a class about theology, it has no right to be in public schools.

Aphrodisiac · 08-26-2008, 05:09 PM

I don't care either way.

Most kids are never even going to use that information in their life anyway. It's just something for creationist and scientist to argue about. "this is right so teach it!"

Really, who knows how we became what we are and this information will be useless for most of the kids being taught it. If someone wants to learn about a religion they will. If they want to learn about evolution they will. The only point of teaching either in school is a attempt to either force religion or discredit religion.

It has little to do with educating the children and more to do with what ideas two groups of people want to force on others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedRoseSpiral

If public schools were to start teaching Creationism in school then it should be expected of them not to teach it in a science class but in a class that goes over other creation stories from other religions and cultures.

Agreed, if they had to teach about religious ideas it would be required to included many religions and ideas. Creation means any concept of a creator or creators.

I would love to see the reaction of people if ideas of theistic satanism was was a class thanks to people that want creationism taught. The reaction of some of them would be priceless. It won't happen though.

If either side wanted it for educational purposes there would be a class on all ideas from evolution to religions. The problem is they are only thinking about their own beliefs and not the big picture. Teaching one view when there are many out there is not educating, it's attempted brain washing and does not support free thinking.

Germanboi · 08-26-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya

I was taught neither in school.

If they teach one, they should teach the other. They teach you every other theory in the freakin' universe anyway.

I disagree because they do not teach the pagan creation, the Native American creations, the Indian creation and so on and so forth. Leave out any religions belief in creation, and leave the scientific creation to school. That easy.

**Opunaya** · 08-27-2008, 04:38 AM

I said cover theories, didn't I?

--------------- Added 27 Aug 2008 at 04:49 am ---------------

Plus, they're NEVER going to allow Evolution taught unless Creationism is taught...we're going to be lucky if people will even compromise that much.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 08-27-2008, 08:10 AM

Covering creationism can be as simple as, "Some people do not believe in the theories originally presented by Darwin. They believe the world and the things in it were instantaneously brought into being by a supernatural force, most commonly referred to as 'God.' "

Badabing, badaboom. Next theory please.

I don't believe in this clap trap, but if they do present one origin theory, they should present counter viewpoints. A public school, however, should not expand any further than that.

**Opunaya** · 08-27-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

Covering creationism can be as simple as, "Some people do not believe in the theories originally presented by Darwin. They believe the world and the things in it were instantaneously brought into being by a supernatural force, most commonly referred to as 'God.' "

Badabing, badaboom. Next theory please.

I don't believe in this clap trap, but if they do present one origin theory, they should present counter viewpoints. A public school, however, should not expand any further than that.

There you go. That is all they need. Evolution is more interesting to me anyway, cuz I like to think about the next level for creatures.

Alyssa. =D · 08-27-2008, 10:48 AM

I've actually been taught both.
But because I've seen evidence scientifically..I'm more likely to believe it, but it doesn't mean I highly disbelieve anything else I was taught. People teach wha they know. Some know evolution, some know God created the Earth and it's creatures. But because they don't teach or believe in what you think is right...doesn't mean they should stop doing whatever it is they're doing and go by your "rules"

If I grew up and wanted to teach that God created man and what not..I'll do because I would believe in it. How comfortable would you feel if you taught something you don't believe in.

Then again how comfortable would you feel if you were being taught something you believe in? ..well That's a different story, but no one is asking you to actually believe in it.

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. No one is forcing anyone to know a certain thing, they're just explaining it in the way they know.

**Ristaron** · 08-27-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Pirata

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ed...=1&oref=slogin

My view? Teach evolution in school and leave creationism teachings to the church. Plain and simple see?

I'll boil it down further: teach science in science class, and leave religion to religious institutions. Creationism/Intelligent Design are hypotheses, nothing more than educated guesses. Evolution is a theory, proven to be true in all practical cases. It's called the scientific method, and too many people disregard it when tooting their own horn. Some exceptionally stupid people will profess that evolution is not a "Law" and therefore is no more valid than Creationism/Intelligent Design. I say exceptionally stupid because this displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. A hypothesis and a theory both seek to explain how something works. A Law states results, but doesn't give explanations why. The Law of Gravity doesn't explain gravity, it just explains its effects.

Evolution isn't a law or hypothesis, it's a theory, and therefore best suited to be taught in a science class.

The vaunted "10 Questions To Ask Your Biology Teacher" mentioned in the article are equally ignorant, and I'll post the questions (and their answers) for the benefit of this conversation.

Quote:

1. Origin of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

N.C.S.E. answer: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the earth’s early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

2. Darwin’s tree of life. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

A. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian. We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as “modern”; they’re in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.

3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence or common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence) . Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not “evidence” for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

4. Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology — “evo-devo” — is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. “Faked” drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel (long-discredited drawings that were used in textbooks 20 years ago) and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel’s drawings, as claimed.

5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

A: The notion of a “missing link” is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil. These fossils are not direct ancestors of modern birds but relatives, and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!

6. Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.

7. Darwin’s finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies exquisitely documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!

8. Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing “raw material” for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.

9. Human origins. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to “justify materialistic claims” is not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.

10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory.

In short, science doesn't pretend to have all the answers, but we haven't resigned to not seeking the answers of the universe in favour of a belief that some cosmic zombie who was his own father will save our eternal soul if we symbolically devour his flesh, thus eliminating our fear of death.