Which should be taught in school science classes?

[roguenuke]

So I have seen some people place evolution at the same level as intelligent design and even creationism in saying that it is simply a belief. While certain explainations of evolution are a belief, biological evolution itself actually has physical evidence to support it. And even Natural Selection has some evidence to support it.

Now I actually believe somewhat in intelligent design, but also recognize that it is a belief without evidence to support it. Of course, my own beliefs on ID probably differ greatly on how most believe in ID. In fact, I probably would describe my beliefs as a hybrid between ID and Natural Selection.

Now, I am not asking in the poll what you personally believe, but rather what you think should be taught to students. It would be good, however, to include in your response what you personally believe and/or an explanation on what should be taught.

I think that we should only teach evidence-supported science to students and allow them to decide for themselves if they accept that evidence, completely reject it, or develop their own ideas and theories based on that evidence and/or their own beliefs.

 

[Black Dog]

Evolution or natural selection have scientific data and should be taught in science class.
Creationism should be taught in a philosophy or comparative religion class.

I am an old earth Christian, so I have no problem with natural selection or even evolution as they have evidence to support the theory's.

In the end science class is about science and scientific theory, not religion. Intelligent design if it was more than a hypothesis mite pass, but I doubt it.

 

[Taboon]

Considering creationism and intelligent design are not backed by science it doesn't make much sense to teach those ideas in a science class. As Blackdog stated above, those two beliefs belong in a religious studies/philosophy class.

 

[Laila]

Evolution ofc.

Intelligent design is RE. Philosophy and Ethics.
At least that is how I did it in school :shrug:

 

[Your Star]

Evolution. Religion should not be taught in science class.

 

[Redress]

Every theory in this area

There is only one theory in this area(with some subtheories as to the actual mechanics). Intelligent design and Creationism are not theories. They are also not science, and as such do not belong in science class, except possibly as an illustration as to what is and is not science and the scientific method.

 

[Ikari]

In the science classroom only evolution. Creationism and ID can be philosophy or theology class.

 

[roguenuke]

There is only one theory in this area(with some subtheories as to the actual mechanics). Intelligent design and Creationism are not theories. They are also not science, and as such do not belong in science class, except possibly as an illustration as to what is and is not science and the scientific method.

I'm sure many people can come up with different theories in this area. The issue is how much actual evidence there is to support those theories.

So I agree that there is only one evidence-supported theory, which is evolution. However, there could be any number of theories that are not supported by physical evidence at all, but would still be theories. A wrong theory or even an unsupported theory, is still a theory.

 

[Your Star]

I'm sure many people can come up with different theories in this area. The issue is how much actual evidence there is to support those theories.

So I agree that there is only one evidence-supported theory, which is evolution. However, there could be any number of theories that are not supported by physical evidence at all, but would still be theories. A wrong theory or even an unsupported theory, is still a theory.

No, an unsupported theory would be a hypothesis.

 

[Redress]

I'm sure many people can come up with different theories in this area. The issue is how much actual evidence there is to support those theories.

So I agree that there is only one evidence-supported theory, which is evolution. However, there could be any number of theories that are not supported by physical evidence at all, but would still be theories. A wrong theory or even an unsupported theory, is still a theory.

A theory is has to be supported by evidence or it is not a theory. This is how I would support using creationism/ID in science classes, to illustrate that point. Evolution is a theory, creationism and ID are not. Knowing the difference is important for some one studying science.

 

[roguenuke]

No, an unsupported theory would be a hypothesis.

Which is a synonym for theory. Theory and hypothesis are generally the same thing, only it is assumed that hypothesis has no evidence yet to support it but a theory usually has some sort of evidence, even if it is anecdotal or based on "there has to be something".

Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

This is how we have theoretical physics. These guys are basing their theories on mathematics in general, but also on pretty much any other thing that might be true just from observations of the universe, then looking for ways to prove the theories correct.

If I said that my theory was that aliens have been visiting Earth for the past 100 million years and messing around with species and life on Earth in general just to see what happens, it would still be a theory. I have no proof and would need to find a way to actually prove it if I ever wanted this to be a widely accepted theory and to get it taught in the classroom. This is why I have that particular choice in the poll. To see if there are some people who would approve of teaching absolutely any theory on the development of life on this planet, rather than ones that we just have proof to support.

 

[Redress]

The word theory when it is used in science has a much more clear and exact meaning than the word theory in colloquial English.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

[digsbe]

Every theory should be taught. Evolution has serious flaws that go untold. It's also scientifically dishonest to present 1 flawed theory and ignore others because they include a creator.

 

[roguenuke]

The word theory when it is used in science has a much more clear and exact meaning than the word theory in colloquial English.

Edit: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Point conceded.

But my original intent was to get a discussion going on what should be taught in science, not the names of those things that are taught. Most people understand theory as an idea of how something might be or might come to be, even if this doesn't take into account the science definition of theory. By stating the option as "any theory", it would be more likely to get feedback from those who may believe in those other theories that lead to our existence, even if they wouldn't be considered actual scientific theories overall.

 

[roguenuke]

Every theory should be taught. Evolution has serious flaws that go untold. It's also scientifically dishonest to present 1 flawed theory and ignore others because they include a creator.

We wouldn't have enough time to teach every theory within science in science classes. I could come up with several theories/hypotheses for how life became the way it is on Earth right now, including my alien theory above and that we are all just a part of one big dream of a baby dragon. This is why it is necessary to only teach about those things in science that actually have proof to support them, even if there are flaws within some small parts of the theory.

 

[liblady]

Every theory should be taught. Evolution has serious flaws that go untold. It's also scientifically dishonest to present 1 flawed theory and ignore others because they include a creator.

dig.....creationism is not science, it's religion, and as such should not be taught as science. creationism has no basis in fact whatsoever. do you really believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

fwiw, i believe in god, and somehow still believe in evolution. we'll know when we know, and i'm fine with that. but let's not pretend that creationsim is science, because we all know it's not. it's NOT credible.

 

[digsbe]

We wouldn't have enough time to teach every theory within science in science classes. I could come up with several theories/hypotheses for how life became the way it is on Earth right now, including my alien theory above and that we are all just a part of one big dream of a baby dragon. This is why it is necessary to only teach about those things in science that actually have proof to support them, even if there are flaws within some small parts of the theory.

I think we would have enough time. Evolution doesn't need to be taught in detail, nor do the others. I would want them discussing the scientific facts between the theories and not simply (there is no God and everything is random) or (God did this one day 2 according to the Bible). There is proof supporting creationism/ID and serious flaws in evolution that go untaught. I think all scientific theories should be discussed in regards to how life formed.

dig.....creationism is not science, it's religion, and as such should not be taught as science. creationism has no basis in fact whatsoever. do you really believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

fwiw, i believe in god, and somehow still believe in evolution. we'll know when we know, and i'm fine with that. but let's not pretend that creationsim is science, because we all know it's not. it's NOT credible.

Creationism is science. It's the scientific theory that God created life. There are scientific proofs supporting it, there are absolutely facts and scientific basis for holding a creationists scientific view point. And yes, I do believe that the earth is several thousand years old based on scientific observation.

 

[liblady]

I think we would have enough time. Evolution doesn't need to be taught in detail, nor do the others. I would want them discussing the scientific facts between the theories and not simply (there is no God and everything is random) or (God did this one day 2 according to the Bible). There is proof supporting creationism/ID and serious flaws in evolution that go untaught. I think all scientific theories should be discussed in regards to how life formed.



Creationism is science. It's the scientific theory that God created life. There are scientific proofs supporting it, there are absolutely facts and scientific basis for holding a creationists scientific view point. And yes, I do believe that the earth is several thousand years old based on scientific observation.

please provide some facts that bolster your claim that creationism is factual.

 

[Ikari]

Anything which innately calls upon the supernatural is not proper realm of science. For it to be a scientific theory there must be a way of measuring the system. Gods are immeasurable systems and thus science cannot comment on them. If a theory has innately at its core some supernatural or god like creature, it cannot be a theory of science since the ultimate premise is untestable.

 

[Your Star]

Point conceded.

But my original intent was to get a discussion going on what should be taught in science, not the names of those things that are taught. Most people understand theory as an idea of how something might be or might come to be, even if this doesn't take into account the science definition of theory. By stating the option as "any theory", it would be more likely to get feedback from those who may believe in those other theories that lead to our existence, even if they wouldn't be considered actual scientific theories overall.

But we are talking about science class, and for something to be called a theory, it needs to fit the scientific definition of a theory.

Anyways for it to be discussed in a science class it should have some evidence to back it up. We can't give the same scientific credence to people just making up crap, without any scientific backing.

 

[digsbe]

please provide some facts that bolster your claim that creationism is factual.

I don't want to derail this thread into a creation vs. evolution debate. However, I will share some links in regards to your question.
Q&A
Evidence from Science

 

[Redress]

Every theory should be taught. Evolution has serious flaws that go untold. It's also scientifically dishonest to present 1 flawed theory and ignore others because they include a creator.

Those flaws are?

 

[Redress]

Creationism is science. It's the scientific theory that God created life. There are scientific proofs supporting it, there are absolutely facts and scientific basis for holding a creationists scientific view point. And yes, I do believe that the earth is several thousand years old based on scientific observation.

No it is not. It is not based on observation, and it is not falsifiable.

 

[winston53660]

Creationism is science. It's the scientific theory that God created life. There are scientific proofs supporting it, there are absolutely facts and scientific basis for holding a creationists scientific view point. And yes, I do believe that the earth is several thousand years old based on scientific observation.

Several thousand or several tens of thousands?

 

[winston53660]

Creationism is science. It's the scientific theory that God created life. There are scientific proofs supporting it, there are absolutely facts and scientific basis for holding a creationists scientific view point. And yes, I do believe that the earth is several thousand years old based on scientific observation.

Several thousand or several billion?