• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Why teach the INVALID "theory" of evolution?

I have a small point to make to all of those biblical literalists out there. In the book of Job we are told that God has a plan but it is far beyond the ability of man to understand the workings of the Divine. Now I am an athiest although if I ever meet God, I will of course immediately believe in him. So if this is the case, how can they believe they understand how God created the Universe. Man was made out of clay? Let there be light? I'm sorry but I find the concept of nuclear fusion a lot more reasonable for the existence of light than the fact that someone said so (How nuclear fusion originally started or where the fuel came from IS a mystery but no credible scientist would say otherwise).

But what really peeves me about creation 'science' has to be the fact that any hole in the theory of Evolution (that is how it has ALWAYS been referred to in the scientific community) is treat as proof of creationism.

This is not my main bone of contention. My problem is the framing of the 'debate'. It is always creation versus evolution as if evolution is the only scientific obstacle to complete acceptance of the "Young Earth" hypothesis or Creationism. How about Geology people! But can you really imagine a creation scientist trying to debate a geologist. Now it is remotely possible that God created the fossil record and created the apparent illusion of various geological eras by creating each individual strata. Strange the bible doen't mention it as it went into all of the other aspects of Divine creation in such detail.

If tomorrow Evolution were completely debunked, would this mean creationism is incontrivertible fact? Of course not.
 
I am so sick of people who know nothing about science saying that evolution doesnt exist. I suppose millions of years of fossil records that point toward evolution dont exist either. Look, you christian nuts dont even know what evolution is. Evolution is based on the concept of survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is obviously when the stonger and smarter survive and adapt and pass the traits to their offspring, over long periods of time, this is known as evolution. We have observed survival of the fittest in countless cases in our world today. Such a case would be when the industrial revolution occured, in areas of new england near factories, the moss on the trees turned black with soot. A species of moth commonly known as the pepper moth rested on those trees frequently. The moths came in two basic color patterns, white or black. The white moths used to be the most common but now they stood out against the black moss and birds picked them out easily. Over a few years, the black moths made up the majority of the pepper moth population due to survival of the fittest. There you have it, that isnt "invalid", thats a fact.
 
Shamgar said:
Why teach the INVALID "theory" of evolution? It doesn't comply with the scientific method.

flawsofevolution1009is.jpg


Here is the Scientific method in flow chart form (click to enlarge on all images):



So beware of atheists and agnostics trying to say they have a valid reason to teach evolution when it is not even a theory according to the scientific method as it CAN NOT reach a valid conclusion.

Click to expand...

I swear this time, I am replying contructively:

why teach the theory of evolution (you are indeed right to call it a theory, so long as you accept that the Creation is a theory too) because:

over many hundereds of years, man has realised that- why create anything that man can not eat with ease? if god did create it for us to preside over, (i beleive the wording is: the had control over the animals) why create things that can kill us? why create a specie that is 99% genetically the same as us? if the creation theory is correct, that means that the earth is only a few thousand years old, so why didnt god create the earth completely solid stone? but no, it has a liquid outer core.. which has been proved.. why is the earth round? and not flat- surely that would have taken a lot less time. why didnt god create planets which had life into one big planet? if I were god I woujldnt want to waste my time building a universe when I could have just created the one planet and have done with it... why does the universe expand? does god feel like adding to it once in a while, or could it be the result of a BANG. why did god waste his time creating tiny tiny things that are one cell big? because all of this happened through Natural Science, it fits better that everything evolved. and yes we HAVE seen things evolve- viruses for instance. (another thing were I wonder why god bothered)

and your last propoganda card highly amuses me. About those who do not beleive in god, there are enough of them to bring about this Wrath of Heaven isnt there? there are many good athesits stupid fool- do not decieve yourself with the illusion devout faith will do anything but waste your time and weight your back down so you can not have fun with life. Life is a gift to us, given by sheer chance, we should exploit it to the full. If it comforts you to think there is an afterlife- beleive in it well, but maybe inyour dying moments when no angels come and exalt you in your rightful place next to god (where doubtless I will be your footstool) you will realise you have wasted your youth and your age and you should have listened to reason and enjoyed yourself.
 
Last edited:
sitegod said:
I swear this time, I am replying contructively:

why teach the theory of evolution (you are indeed right to call it a theory, so long as you accept that the Creation is a theory too) because:
Click to expand...
Actually, Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, derived through the Scientific Method. Creationism has no scientific foundation at all It doesn't even meet the first step of the Scientific Method, that of being a hypothesis. So there is no way it is ever going to be a "theory" in the Scientific sense.
 
there are some people who don't know what the word Theory really means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

quote from wikipedia said:
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never concidered fact or unfallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.
Click to expand...
 
And why is it that if you asked a scientist to explain the theory of evolution he is likely to bore you to death as he rambles on about carbon-dating, beneficial mutations, the fossil record, natural selection, genetic structures, transitional forms and lots of slides of rocks and fossils and the like to back up his theory, yet you ask a creationist and all they can do is pick holes in the theory of evolution. Is it because their only 'evidence' is a couple of lines in a book written god knows how long ago. Personally I think rocks are much better evidence than a quotation. Even if I don't understand what the rock means. Thats why he's the scientist. Are we going to have to start teaching David and Goliath, Moses and Noah in History!

I love the way you put invalid in upper case, as if it strengthens your argument, and if evolution is not a theory, as your speech marks connote, then what is it?
 
i didnt mean I didnt beleive it was true, I was just saying- one can be open minded to the Divine. I personally think its propoganda... but you know open mindedness to be encouraged
 
If evolution is taught in schools in a science class that is mandatory, which there is no bad reason for, i believe that religion (or atleast christian) should be taught as well in a philosophy class that is also required! Keeps the school system balanced wouldnt ya say? I say this is a logical approach to this subject! If not mandatory for BOTH, i believe it should be required for the student to CHOOSE which one he or she wants to take! Though being agnostic, i would rather take the class partaining to christianity for a philosophical viewpoint!

Just one mans opinion!
 
philosophy is taught, in accordance with history, english, and humanities etc. However, further pursuing of philosophy is something left for universities. In any successful country, the pinnacle of education should be math science reading and writing. I'm fine with introducing various creation myths in history classes as we study civilizations, and then maybe study religions depending on literature in english or humanities. As long as evolution is taught as a scientific theory in science class, anything else is fine. Just don't introduce genesis or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, its just not true.
 
nkgupta80 said:
philosophy is taught, in accordance with history, english, and humanities etc. However, further pursuing of philosophy is something left for universities. In any successful country, the pinnacle of education should be math science reading and writing. I'm fine with introducing various creation myths in history classes as we study civilizations, and then maybe study religions depending on literature in english or humanities. As long as evolution is taught as a scientific theory in science class, anything else is fine. Just don't introduce genesis or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, its just not true.
Click to expand...

Pretty bold statement at the end there! My old school district did not pursue any means of a required philosophy class. I never even remembered it being offered to take! Both are theories, it is not right to say evolution HAS to be taught but not christianity (or another religion)! As long as none of the teachers pressure you saying it is the truth! It is truely IMPOSSIBLE to know the truth! Though there is believing, whatever it may be! A balance is more of what i was trying to get across!
 
in terms of science, intelligent design isn't an alternative... its really sad that there is sucha big movement to promote intelligent design in science classes in the US.
 
It is truely IMPOSSIBLE to know the truth!
Click to expand...

But by results of experiments, and applications, we can know whether we are headed in the right direction. From the consequences of evolution we know that our current theory of evolution is headed in the right direction. Evolution is the only theory that completely binds genetics, biology, and ecology. No other theory postulated can boast that statement. Evolution has also helped lead to numerous breakthroughs in medical and biological research.

of course we can always speculate about an intelligent creator but what use is that. Even if there is one, does it matter, when we're trying to apply that knowledge? What do we do, go to the intelligent creator and ask him for a cure to cancer? Maybe we should study the book of genesis, and it may give us insight into the complexities of DNA, and the mutations that cause cancer. All we know is that evolution gives us a good understanding of how things came to be, and how things work currently.
 
AK_Conservative said:
Pretty bold statement at the end there! My old school district did not pursue any means of a required philosophy class. I never even remembered it being offered to take! Both are theories, it is not right to say evolution HAS to be taught but not christianity (or another religion)! As long as none of the teachers pressure you saying it is the truth! It is truely IMPOSSIBLE to know the truth! Though there is believing, whatever it may be! A balance is more of what i was trying to get across!
Click to expand...

Creationism isn't a theory. A theory has some facts to substantiate it. Creationism has just as much to validate it as any other religious myth. If you want to teach in public school one religious version of how everything started, you must teach all.
 
nkgupta80 said:
But by results of experiments, and applications, we can know whether we are headed in the right direction. From the consequences of evolution we know that our current theory of evolution is headed in the right direction. Evolution is the only theory that completely binds genetics, biology, and ecology. No other theory postulated can boast that statement. Evolution has also helped lead to numerous breakthroughs in medical and biological research.

of course we can always speculate about an intelligent creator but what use is that. Even if there is one, does it matter, when we're trying to apply that knowledge? What do we do, go to the intelligent creator and ask him for a cure to cancer? Maybe we should study the book of genesis, and it may give us insight into the complexities of DNA, and the mutations that cause cancer. All we know is that evolution gives us a good understanding of how things came to be, and how things work currently.
Click to expand...


Point taken but evolution does not prove there is no afterlife now does it?
 
AK_Conservative said:
Point taken but evolution does not prove there is no afterlife now does it?
Click to expand...

What does an after life have to do with science?
 
jallman said:
What does an after life have to do with science?
Click to expand...

I know it did not really follow the post but it was more or less just a statement!

My main point is balance in the system! Keep things consistant.. Cultural values.. ect.. dont feel the need to repost it.. just scroll up!
 
I know it did not really follow the post but it was more or less just a statement!

My main point is balance in the system! Keep things consistant.. Cultural values.. ect.. dont feel the need to repost it.. just scroll up!
Click to expand...

science is not taking away cultural values. These cultural values can be discussed in the respective humanities classes, along with literature in english classes, and with the studiies of cultures in history classes. Science will remain the study of the world through reason through induction and objectivity.
 
AK_Conservative said:
I know it did not really follow the post but it was more or less just a statement!

My main point is balance in the system! Keep things consistant.. Cultural values.. ect.. dont feel the need to repost it.. just scroll up!
Click to expand...

Oh I read it. I just didnt/still dont see the relevance is all. Was hoping you could enlighten me, but I guess that was a bit much to ask.
 
yeah I really don't understand how the afterlife got into all of this. Of course evolution doesn't talk o fthe afterlife. Science doesn't talk of the afterlife.
 
AK_Conservative said:
Point taken but evolution does not prove there is no afterlife now does it?
Click to expand...
What is the relevance of your remark?

NOTHING is proving or disproving an afterlife, after all.
 
AK_Conservative said:
I know it did not really follow the post but it was more or less just a statement!

My main point is balance in the system! Keep things consistant.. Cultural values.. ect.. dont feel the need to repost it.. just scroll up!
Click to expand...
Again, none of this has anything to do with Science. So either you are talking nonsense, or you really have no clue what science is. Am I worng in that assumption?
 
If we want to teach Creationism as an alternative to evolution, then we ought to teach magic as an alternative to physics. I tend to agree with AK_Conservative when it comes to balance, but in all cases the truth is heavier than fiction, so Creationism and evolution don't equally match up when it comes to balance. No more than magic and physics. Creationists seem to spend more time trying to pick apart the theory of evolution than trying to prove Creationism, undoubtedly because there isn't much evidence for them to go on.

I don't quite understand why there needs to be such a huge debate over high school science cirriculum. It's possible to teach evolution without ever mentioning the origin of speces. Just start with big penguins in Antarctica and illustrate the natural selection, decent with modification, adaptation and survival of the fittest that must have occurred for there to be smaller penguins living (and thriving) on tropical islands at the equator. You don't have to start with amino acids. You don't even have to say how many years, just "several generations" is enough. Heck, that even fits within a 6,000-year-old Earth if any student is that literal.

Maybe it's not the responsibility of high school science to teach students how life may have begun on Earth. Maybe that should be left for a philosophy or theology class? In the meantime, teach adaptation and natural selection, and leave the origin of speces out of it for now. Problem solved!
 
There is little point in actually debating Creationists, because regardless of the support you provide for evolution, they will continually strawman the concept or throw up complete red herrings in an effort to disrupt you. I have yet to see a Creationist accept any core evidence, regardless of how convincing it would be to someone with a working brain.

Whenever you present facts, they ignore them. Whenever you present evidence, they say it's not not enough. They continually throw up a Wall of Ignorance over which logical cannot scale. This isn't suprising, since we are talking about people who actually believe the earth was magick'ed into exitence by an invisible sky-faerie. That should tell you right there what you are dealing with. Children aren't that stupid.
 
Creationists don't have the solid facts, the evidence. All they have is faith *(and that's fine, I'm not discriminating what you believe in), and to me, that's just not enough. Why religious debate is nearly pointless is because it depends on faith, which is an excuse to ignore every just fact that opposes your views of beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom