Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools?

[wxcrazytwo]

I believe it should. It would be nice to learn where we originated or evolved from.

 

[TechDad]

Evolution is the basis of modern biology, there is overwhelming consensus for this at the University level. Creationism or Intelligent design are not science. They do not present testable hypothesis. If one wants to teach them in school that is fine but teach them in religion class and be intellectually honest about it. These simply aren't science.

Those who prefer alternative (non-scientific) explanations of human origins be taught in public school science classes should not be suprised that those countries who regularly outperform the US in mathematics and science are laughing harder than ever at the fact that this is even a debate.


Is there an icon for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[nkgupta80]

too bad people don't understand that, or don't want to understand. All arguments against evolution have either been proven false. No argument on the creationist side has been thought out through a scientific process. I can't believe people by into the "of pandas and people" crap.

 

[wxcrazytwo]

too bad people don't understand that, or don't want to understand. All arguments against evolution have either been proven false. No argument on the creationist side has been thought out through a scientific process. I can't believe people by into the "of pandas and people" crap.

quit it, quit acting like a monkey...

 

[kal-el]

I believe it should. It would be nice to learn where we originated or evolved from.

Of course it should, in science class anyway. Creationalism is all fine and dandy, but it dosen't contain any testable evidence. Evolution may be a theory, but it is a theory based on testable evidence. I myself used to buy into Intelligent Design. But, that really has no evidence, its merely a jump of faith. Right now, however I believe in theistic evolution. I think a higher power got it started, then left us alone, so evolution took over from there. What are most of our bodies made of? Water. What is the Earth comprised of mostly? Water.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

What are most of our bodies made of? Water. What is the Earth comprised of mostly? Water.

What does this mean?

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

It means that gatorade must be the next step in the evolutionary cycle sent down from God! Because as we all know,

Gatorade! Water sucks!
Gatorade! Water sucks!
Gatorade! Water sucks!
:lol:

 

[ThatGirl83]

First off.. thumbs up to OdgenTugbyGlub for the Gatorade quote... that's awesome! :smile:

Second, it seems to be the general consensus that Creationism is a theory that "doesn't contain any testable evidence" while evolution is a theory that does. How is this so? If we can test one theory, why not another? What makes the theory of creationism untestable?

Just curious...

 

[nkgupta80]

First off.. thumbs up to OdgenTugbyGlub for the Gatorade quote... that's awesome! :smile:

Second, it seems to be the general consensus that Creationism is a theory that "doesn't contain any testable evidence" while evolution is a theory that does. How is this so? If we can test one theory, why not another? What makes the theory of creationism untestable?

Just curious...

sure we can test it. All tests proved inconclusive due to lack of observable evidence of an intelligent designer. Its too abstract and too inapplicable to be considered as a useable scientific theory. It also doesn't explain in detail many of the phenomena in biology and genetics. Evolution does.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

How do you test the existence of a metaphysical being?

 

[nkgupta80]

How do you test the existence of a metaphysical being?

we first assume that the metaphysical being is more powerful than us since it created us. We can also assume that it therefore understands our modes of communication. With those assumptions you address the metaphysical being with a question in the loudest voice possible. Any question. If it responds, then the test is validated. If the being doesn't the test is inconclusive.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

we first assume that the metaphysical being is more powerful than us since it created us. We can also assume that it therefore understands our modes of communication. With those assumptions you address the metaphysical being with a question in the loudest voice possible. Any question. If it responds, then the test is validated. If the being doesn't the test is inconclusive.

1. Ok, we can assume he's allpowerful. We can then assume he does understand us. That does not lead to the conclusion that if you call to him, he will answer you. If you look in the bible, God is an asshole, so I am not suprised he doesn't answer. He could very well be there silently laughing at you.

Just because he doesn't answer does not mean he isn't there. Want of evidence is not proof of nonexistence. You can't even prove something doesn't eixst. That's proving a negative.

Using your criterion, if a man is hiding in a closet and you scream really loudly his name, and he doesn't answer, he must not exist.

 

[George_Washington]

How do you test the existence of a metaphysical being?

Actually, you can't.

Despite being a Christian, I'll admit that evolution should be taught and that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. However, I do think that students should be encouraged to think on their own apart from what evolution teaches.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Actually, you can't.

Despite being a Christian, I'll admit that evolution should be taught and that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. However, I do think that students should be encouraged to think on their own apart from what evolution teaches.

Ok. Yes. I can agree that students should be taught critical thinking. However, I don't believe they should be allowed to think whatever they want. You shouldn't encourage people to think, for example, that if you hold out a ball and drop it (while on earth), it is reasonable to assume that the ball will fall "up." That's not reasonable.

Evolution is the most reasonable explanation we have. It's parsimonious, consistant, and falsifiable.

 

[George_Washington]

Ok. Yes. I can agree that students should be taught critical thinking. However, I don't believe they should be allowed to think whatever they want. You shouldn't encourage people to think, for example, that if you hold out a ball and drop it (while on earth), it is reasonable to assume that the ball will fall "up." That's not reasonable.

Agreed. A student should still rely on evidence, logical and reasoning.

 

[ThatGirl83]

sure we can test it. All tests proved inconclusive due to lack of observable evidence of an intelligent designer.

Lack of observable evidence? Do you need evidence of an intelligent designer to make creation viable theory? Evolution has no evidence of it's beginning. In fact we have no evidence of our beginning at all that I know of. Except that we obviously exist.
You mean like things still being created? It is like proving history since it is not an ongoing process. There is no observable evidence of history since it is in the past and one cannot observe the past.
Evolution on the other hand, from my understanding of it, claims to be an ongoing, observable theory. And yet I still don't know of any "observable evidence."
Not saying that we should validate someting on blind faith, because I think that would be completely illogical and unscientific. I am just not sure one needs to observe the process of something in order to validate it's theory. There are other ways of prooving something.

Its too abstract and too inapplicable to be considered as a useable scientific theory.

Too abstract and inapplicable? Taking into consideration that we have been able to observe many things being 'created' if you will (buildings, bridges, vehicles, computer, ect), and not been able to see one thing evolve into a higher form... but yet the things that we have been able to observe being created are *much* simpler in design than the most elementry form of life (which we have not yet been able to observe the origin of)... we develop a theory that states that the most complex of things happened by chance.
So, simple thing must be meticuously designed, and complex things are theorised to come about by chance. Hmm.... I would tend to think that to be more abstract and inapplicable than to theorise that what we observe in one instance would have happened in another.

It also doesn't explain in detail many of the phenomena in biology and genetics. Evolution does.

Example please? The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are the platipus (a mamal that lays eggs, evolved from what exactly?), the animals that have creatures inside their digestive system and help to digest their food (neither can survive without the other, which evolved first?).
I am not questioning micro-evolution. I fully agree that that is a perfectly accceptable and commen phenomenon.

How do you test the existence of a metaphysical being?... Just because he doesn't answer does not mean he isn't there. Want of evidence is not proof of nonexistence.

Allow me to add that, just because we can't prove something, or the existence of something doesn't mean it (or he in this case) was never there...

Just raising more questions...

 

[wxcrazytwo]

How do you test the existence of a metaphysical being?

how do you test the existence of GOD?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Actually, you can't.

Despite being a Christian, I'll admit that evolution should be taught and that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. However, I do think that students should be encouraged to think on their own apart from what evolution teaches.

I agree completely.

Lack of observable evidence? Do you need evidence of an intelligent designer to make creation viable theory?

Yes, until such a time it is only a hypothesis, no with no more "viability" than any other unproven hypothesis. E

Ever heard of the Spaghetti monster? There is a hypothesis that the spaghetti monster created the universe, you can't disprove this, so of course it must be true...

Evolution has no evidence of it's beginning. In fact we have no evidence of our beginning at all that I know of. Except that we obviously exist.
You mean like things still being created? It is like proving history since it is not an ongoing process. There is no observable evidence of history since it is in the past and one cannot observe the past.

Past can be indirectly observed, through fossil and soil records. As to the origin of life,
1) we only know that it is possible for amino acids to spontaneously form (proven in the 50's) from non-organic material.

2) We know that it is far more likely that life spontaneously formed than an ultimate being created life from a scientific observation point of view.

Too abstract and inapplicable? Taking into consideration that we have been able to observe many things being 'created' if you will (buildings, bridges, vehicles, computer, ect), and not been able to see one thing evolve into a higher form...

Oh try harder Of course buildings can't evolve, they aren't alive and properties of biology would not apply.

but yet the things that we have been able to observe being created are *much* simpler in design than the most elementary form of life (which we have not yet been able to observe the origin of)... we develop a theory that states that the most complex of things happened by chance.
So, simple thing must be meticuously designed, and complex things are theorised to come about by chance. Hmm.... I would tend to think that to be more abstract and inapplicable than to theorise that what we observe in one instance would have happened in another.

What?

Example please? The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are the platipus (a mamal that lays eggs, evolved from what exactly?), the animals that have creatures inside their digestive system and help to digest their food (neither can survive without the other, which evolved first?).

The change of oyster shell size and shape over time, the change in frequency of any physical trait in any population really.

The organisms that live in other organism's digestive system for mutual benefit actual evolve together, in co-evolution.

Allow me to add that, just because we can't prove something, or the existence of something doesn't mean it (or he in this case) was never there...

Disprove my spaghetti monster hypothesis.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I've noticed a similar thread exists:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4091

 

[George_Washington]

2) We know that it is far more likely that life spontaneously formed than an ultimate being created life from a scientific observation point of view.

Mmmmm, I'm not sure we know this. I don't think there is solid evidence as to what, "probably" happened. We just don't know enough about it yet to make such a conclusion.

 

[kal-el]

What does this mean?

I was simply attempting to point out that our bodies are composed of mostly water, the same as the Earth, thus water is the source. Life could've evolved after millions of years.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Mmmmm, I'm not sure we know this. I don't think there is solid evidence as to what, "probably" happened. We just don't know enough about it yet to make such a conclusion.

Of course (did I say something different?) we don't know. I said that it is far more likely (from a scientific stand point) for life to have spontaneously formed than a being created it.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I was simply attempting to point out that our bodies are composed of mostly water, the same as the Earth, thus water is the source. Life could've evolved after millions of years.

Thank you, I was a little confused.

 

[George_Washington]

Of course (did I say something different?) we don't know. I said that it is far more likely (from a scientific stand point) for life to have spontaneously formed than a being created it.

But I'm saying that we don't know enough about it yet to say that it's far more likely for life to have spontaneously formed. How is that true?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Because is the only working hypothesis (besides God), amino acids have been produced from organic material, and God remains a staggering improbability.