• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Should schools teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution?


  • Total voters
    75

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I voted yes, but only in the cavet that it is NOT taught as the only theory.

Creationism has not been ruled out as there is no true evidence to support that either of these are the truth.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here some interesting recent news about Kansas on this topic.

Source: Yahoo News

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.
The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
vauge said:
Here some interesting recent news about Kansas on this topic.

Source: Yahoo News


Looks like a cop out in an effort to be politically correct.
 

Blackflagx

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan, USA
Evolution should be taught and religion should not. It is called science for a reason! Religion is not science. Plus, religion has no place in a state run institution (seperation of church and state). Ban all religious education in public schools and teach evolution.
 

mmatejka

New member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Economic Refugee in Mexico
In my opinion, the basics of "where we came from" is really more of a religious/personal issue than something that should not be taught in schools at all..

HOWEVER...if it MUST be taught, Darwin's theory should not be presented as the sole, factual story of events, as it basically is in the public school system. As a Christian, I find this HIGHLY offensive. It is important to present all "theories" as equal if they are to be presented.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Theory of Evolution should be taught, but I think that the teachers should also hint at Creationism. Just so it's not a one-sided thing, that could anger alot of Christans.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
mmatejka actually voted no...wow....Arch enemy is correct. Darwin should be taught as the main theory and it should only be hinted at that we were created...even without the empirical evi...nevermind. He said it perfectly.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vauge said:
I voted yes, but only in the cavet that it is NOT taught as the only theory.

Creationism has not been ruled out as there is no true evidence to support that either of these are the truth.
I agree completely. I also voted yes, but that is because I believe that Darwin's theory should be taught alongside other theories, including intelligent design, which is held by a large number of Catholics. If you look into some of the intelligent design theories that have been postulated, it isn't even wholly incompatible with the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Blackflagx said:
Evolution should be taught and religion should not. It is called science for a reason! Religion is not science. Plus, religion has no place in a state run institution (seperation of church and state). Ban all religious education in public schools and teach evolution.

Which form of evolution should be taught? Marxist, or capitalist? So much for 'science' because depending on your political view you'll be able to find the science of your choice.

There's Nazi Science
Marxist Science
Feminist Science
Capitalist Science
various Nationalist Sciences
Finnish nationalist science! (see http://www.hf-fak.uib.no/smi/paj/isotalo.html)
Indian (see http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/zkp4/08.htm)
Chinese
various religious-Sciences
Pythaogrean Science
Christian (Creationist) Science
Islamic Science
(some of these are psueduo sceinces, depending upon your a priori understandings of normative science)

For example, Marxists claim to have a special insight into science...applying Maxian ideas of construction to science...
“ According to the traditional 'internalist' view of science, scientists make up their minds on scientific issues primarily through reason, argument and evidence. Other factors may be involved, but they should be weeded out.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/hull_sociobiology.html

“In Marxism, groups are more important than individuals. Capitalists view nature as competitive, whereas these Marxist critics tend to view it as being much more cooperative.”
Ibid.
That therefore the science in each society is relative of these a priori beliefs.

That is, they believe that scientists are biased, based on class distinctions. They are of course biased in their critique of science, everyone is, inside and outside of science.
The Chinese are quick to show the prominent role China played in our evolution. There is evidence that we evolved in Africa, or that we evolved elsewhere. http://www.chineseprehistory.org/beard.htm
Suggests that man arose in China, not Africa!* (or rather an ancestor of man arose there)
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//index.htm
is the introduction to this site. It is evidence of the nature of evidence, wholly subjective; that Chinese nationalism is behind these particular pieces of 'scientific evidence.' This increases the over-all number of different forms of science there are.
Why so many? Because people are people, and they bring subjective reasoning to the table. When 'evidence' is interpreted, it is interpreted by flawed and failed humans with biases just like everyone else's.


Addendum:
Marxist Science (see http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide2.html
for how it is applied to history of materialism)
Feminist Science (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/sci.html)

Feminists will find fault with Darwinsm, based on the male-orientated view-point that is taught.

Darwin postulated that females are ''coy,'' mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ''ardent'' and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners. Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/su-sag021003.php
See also
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html

“In the mid-nineteenth century, social Darwinists invoked evolutionary biology to argue that a woman was a man whose evolution - both physical and mental - had been arrested in a primitive stage. In this same period, doctors used their authority as scientists to discourage women's attempts to gain access to higher education. Women's intellectual development, it was argued, would proceed only at great cost to reproductive development. As the brain developed, so the logic went, the ovaries shrivel. In the twentieth century, scientists have given modern dress to these prejudices. Arguments for women's different (and inferior) nature have been based on hormonal research, brain lateralization, and sociobiology.?
Londa Schiebinger, “History and Philosophy”, in Sex and Scientific Inquiry, eds. Sandra Harding and Jean F. O'Barr, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 26-27.
Quoted at: http://www.dean.sbc.edu/bart.html
Feminists claim that evolution, long the domain of men has present biased accounts of science in order to explain gender.
“Men's claims to “know” women's natures, abilities, limitations, and so forth have been a fundamental element of feminist criticisms since its genesis, primarily because it is precisely these claims which are used to justify the social and political subordination of women.”
Ibid.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
mmatejka said:
In my opinion, the basics of "where we came from" is really more of a religious/personal issue than something that should not be taught in schools at all..

HOWEVER...if it MUST be taught, Darwin's theory should not be presented as the sole, factual story of events, as it basically is in the public school system. As a Christian, I find this HIGHLY offensive. It is important to present all "theories" as equal if they are to be presented.
Not only is there no 'one' theory of evolution, there's so much divergence within Darwinsim; from 'slow and gradual change' to 'punctuated equilibrium' to the 'monesterism postulated by Goldschmidt.

What must now seem a long time ago (1986)*, I did a course at university called 'Pre-history'. Our textbook was
Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”, (to which I will be referring specifically to p346ff unless otherwise stated).

As to the ascent of man (though it says 'descent'; itself a loaded term), there were many different theories then that had currency. Each followed scientific method, and each had its fair share of evidences to support it.

My textbook stated that each of the following;
the Unilinear School;
the Polyphyletic School'
the Preneanderthal School; and
the Presapiens School
were all valid possibilities to the pathway our ancestors took. This seemed ludicrous to me (then, and still), that each mutually conflicting theory would be accepted (as long as it doesn't involve God). And yet people can say that the evidence points to a conclusion... that is a Godless process took place. Then these people have the hide to laugh at religious people as if they have 'truth'. What 'truth'? It's all up in the air.

Generally, because they each propose a different pathway or series of pathways for human evolution. “Various possibilities have led to various interpretations... Variation of these theories are endless; they are constantly being revised and rejected.” p346 (Ibid)
textbook was... Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”, p346ff

How can they teach mutually exclusive theories as 'fact'?
Even today these theories have lost favour and two new, but equally exclusive theories have emerged; the "Out of Africa" model, and the Multiregional Evolution Hypothesis (a.k.a. Candelabra or Continuity model, aka Diregional Theory).

All it seems to me is that evolutionists can say is that 'evolution happened'.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I said yes. I believe in micro-evolution. Not specie change, but small adaptations.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Do you believe that once human beings did not walk upright?

How much "micro-evolution" do you believe in?
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Gandhi>Bush said:
Do you believe that once human beings did not walk upright?

How much "micro-evolution" do you believe in?
I'd like to answer that, from my own persepctive.

The basic of evolution is 'change happens'. Evolution is a truism, in that respect. Any change that happens, people can say "That's because of evolution"

When you ask any more detailed questions, such as 'by which means did Man arise?" (as a species), there's no one answer, because all the 'evidences' and all the interpretation that goes on means we get several different answers; but they're all accepted as 'proof' of evolution.
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Montalban said:
Feminists will find fault with Darwinsm, based on the male-orientated view-point that is taught.
.
Feminists will find fault with creationism as well, since the woman is created from the rib of the man.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Gandhi>Bush said:
Do you believe that once human beings did not walk upright?

How much "micro-evolution" do you believe in?
Where we still humans at that time? yes, so we didn't change speices, but we adapted to our environment.
 

Fu_chick

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
ludahai said:
I agree completely. I also voted yes, but that is because I believe that Darwin's theory should be taught alongside other theories, including intelligent design, which is held by a large number of Catholics. If you look into some of the intelligent design theories that have been postulated, it isn't even wholly incompatible with the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists.
I totally agree.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
satanloveslibs said:
Where we still humans at that time? yes, so we didn't change speices, but we adapted to our environment.
Actually, we did. You know how we are termed homo sapiens? Remember good ol' homo erectus?
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
vandree said:
Feminists will find fault with creationism as well, since the woman is created from the rib of the man.
No doubt they would. I don't know any feminist critiques of the Bible (I'm not saying they don't exist; and I'm not after 'proof'). But I do know plenty on evolution etc, and evolution is supposed to be 'above' such human pettiness.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
ShamMol said:
Actually, we did. You know how we are termed homo sapiens? Remember good ol' homo erectus?
There is no one theory of where homo erectus fits into our ancestry.

Here is a short list of changed theories.
"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) - 150 years ago Neanderthal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus.
Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/263.asp

"One of the great controversies of archaeology surrounds the origins of Homo sapiens sapiens. One group of scholars believes that Homo erectus populations throughout the world evolved independently, first into early Homo sapiens, then into fully modern humans. Thus, the modern geographic populations (races) of the world would have been separated for a long time, perhaps a million years. Most experts take a diametrically opposite view. They hypothesize that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved in Africa sometime between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, then spread to other parts of the Old World. Under this model, modern geographic populations are less than 100,000 years old.
2
These two models represent extremes, which pit advocates of anatomical continuity against those who believe there was population replacement. Each model is based on the minute study of human fossil remains, but the replacement theory also relies on studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)."
http://www.bartleby.com/67/24.html
 

Aeschines

New member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Blackflagx said:
Evolution should be taught and religion should not. It is called science for a reason! Religion is not science. Plus, religion has no place in a state run institution (seperation of church and state). Ban all religious education in public schools and teach evolution.
Now, not to be a jerk, but come on people! This website was designed for us so that we could debate. Debate among the people! This phenomenon made possible through the internet has not been witnessed since the days of Ancient Rome! I say, Blackflag, if you are to make your claim, then by God, support it!

In the world of science, evolution is a theory. In the world of religion (where I myself fall into), creationism is the dominant belief, of course. However, the scientists (in many instances) stand firm to this theory and likewise, the religious people have faith in creationism. There is a commonality here that the public education system is missing. The school system should not have a predetermined bias to teach the theories of one group. How can we encourage students to be independent, open-minded thinkers if we present to them only one side of the theory? That is the question we must ask ourselves. Now, what if I told you something that blew your mind! Perhaps, through an hyper-intelligent being (commonly referred to as God in our world) implemented the science that Darwin discovered in his theory of Evolution? This is a theory (granted, it's mine, but all the same). A meshing of both religion and science! What would the school system teach if that were true? The point is, in the mainstream world, there is no answer to the origins of humankind and the creation of the earth. And so, to favor one theory over another shows a lack of open-minded, reasonable thinking, for how can one reason a matter if it is one sided?

-Aeschines
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
:bravo: absolutely!

Wait... are you a liberal? j/k
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Darwin was a lunatic. Taking advantage of young minds is no better than Bin Laden putting guns in childrens hands.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
stsburns said:
Darwin was a lunatic. Taking advantage of young minds is no better than Bin Laden putting guns in childrens hands.
I think you have your answer vauge as to what political side he is on...

Darwain's theory hasn't been disproved yet and lots have tried and failed. So, unless you want to tell me that the earth is 6000 years old...well, you get my point.
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree. I guess the real question is why are so many on each side hell bent to have only their unproven theory taught. Seems very un-American to me. Teach both as theories or teach neither and ignore the complaints of the intolerant on both sides. I say teach neither and leave it to the parents. Neither theory has much to do with math, or science anyway. How can we even consider such unproven guesses when we should be more concerned with simply making sure a solid 100 percent can read green eggs and ham or fox in sox. Teachers with missing links come, teachers with tree of life come. Did you know Green Eggs and ham was wrote to settle a bet that Suess coundn't write a book using only 50 words?
 
Top Bottom