Why is evolution taught in our schools?

[xianghua]

Evolution is taught in the biology classroom because it is the only theory that accurately explains the diversity of life on earth that we see now and in the fossil record - period.

actually the opposite is true: only creation can explain how all creatures appeared on earth and evolution cant.

 

[inquiring mind]

Why is evolution taught in our public schools?"

Early-on academia’s 'believers in science only' promoted evolution aggressively as being the intellectual truth, and with the separation of church and state there was no resistance within the school system based on religious grounds. Of course our Supreme Court has never considered evolution as a religious belief, so it had a green light to go. Those in government and educational administration who knew very little about biology, accepted the TOE, not wanting to appear ignorant themselves. Higher education institutions ratcheted-up teaching the theory and indoctrinated future teachers. That was all that was needed for those wishing to take Creation out of the classroom to get a widespread foothold with TOE, and from there it has only snowballed, even to the point of being 'considered as' and 'accepted as' proven now. Honestly, it wouldn't have been wise to allow the promotion of religions in the school system, and proponents of evolution were crafty enough to piggy-back and pass off their belief as science. So all our children can really do is trust in the Lord for guidance and rely on it when TOE is presented to them as fact.

 

[tas8831]

we can detect design. like we detect design in archeology.

We can detect HUMAN design, yes.

Are you claiming that the Intelligent Designer of Life was a human?

 

[tas8831]

isnt it a fact that motors need design?

It is a fact that motors that humans design and make do in fact need a human designer and manufacturer. Using metaphorical language to refer to biological structures as "motors" is not evidence that, for example, ATPsynthase is 'designed' by humans. By the way - those nice overly-stylistic diagrams of molecular 'motors' that the DI and other religious organizations prefer are not very accurate in their depictions. More realistic models don't seem so... 'designed'...

ATP synthase - Wikipedia

 

[tas8831]

actually the opposite is true: only creation can explain how all creatures appeared on earth and evolution cant.

What is the evidence for creation?

Please keep in mind that nitpicking evolution is not evidence FOR creation.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Evolution is taught in the biology classroom because it is the only theory that accurately explains the diversity of life on earth that we see now and in the fossil record - period.



I'd suggest reading the decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover ISD case.

Even though as darwin himself admitted, the fatal flaw in Evolution is the lackof any transistion fossil in the records?

 

[YeshuaFan]

What is the evidence for creation?

Please keep in mind that nitpicking evolution is not evidence FOR creation.

The simple truth that the odds of there being any life ever forming from the universe on a just random basis is pretty much none!

 

[YeshuaFan]

God's Truth shows that evolution is nothing more than descent with modification within kinds over time. Some people wishing to eliminate God from His own creation changed the name to reflect their Godless views. None of them can explain the magic involved.

There is zero evidence for any species changing into another one over time!

 

[USincognito]

Even though as darwin himself admitted, the fatal flaw in Evolution is the lackof any transistion fossil in the records?

1. Darwin never "admitted"any such thing.
2. Darwin was not an apostle nor his writing an epistle.

 

[Ophiolite]

im trying to show you that im not any of this. but to do so you first need to answer my simple question about these cars. does the similarity between (self replicaiting )cars is evidence for evolution or common designer? to me the answer is clear- only design can explain this similarity. so why to believe otherwise when it comes to living things?

Your replicating cars analogy has been thoroughly discredited by numerous forum members. It is a silly idea.
1. Self replicating cars do not exist.
2. Self replicating cars have not been adequately described by you.
3. Self replicating cars, as described by you, are irrelevant to discussions of evolution and design.
4. Self replicating cars are evidence that you are confused beyond my ability to help you. They are not evidence for anything else.

Now answer my question.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is zero evidence for any species changing into another one over time!

There is zero evidence that you have ever bothered to examine the evidence at any time, therefore your fatuous dismissal can be treated with the contempt it deserves.

 

[inquiring mind]

1. Darwin never "admitted"any such thing.
2. Darwin was not an apostle nor his writing an epistle.

Darwin had his doubts and he did acknowledge that his theory would require lots of transitional forms as proof. He apparently thought they would be found over time, but no such luck yet.

“It was perfectly obvious to Darwin and his contemporaries, who had the difficult task of convincing their skeptical colleagues of the validity of evolution, that transitional forms were essential to the credibility of their claims. The fact that they were largely missing was acknowledged to be a major flaw in their argument.” Denton (ETC) Page 158

“While Darwin was attempting to convince the world of the validity of evolution by natural selection he was admitting privately to friends to moments of doubt over its capacity to generate very complicated adaptations or "organs of extreme perfection", as he described them. In a letter to Asa Gray, the American biologist, written in 1861, just two years after the publication of The Origin Of Species, he acknowledges these doubts and admits that "the eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." Denton (ETC) Page 326

Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Biological Evolution and Origin of Species

 

[Ophiolite]

Darwin had his doubts and he did acknowledge that his theory would require lots of transitional forms as proof. He apparently thought they would be found over time, but no such luck yet.

When you persistently disregard the many examples you have been given the only feasible explanations are that you are lying, or you are suffering some form of memory loss. If it is the latter you have my sincere sympathy, if it is the former my respect for your position sinks further in the quagmire of your dissembling and equivocation.

 

[inquiring mind]

When you persistently disregard the many examples you have been given the only feasible explanations are that you are lying, or you are suffering some form of memory loss. If it is the latter you have my sincere sympathy, if it is the former my respect for your position sinks further in the quagmire of your dissembling and equivocation.

Your answer doesn't surprise me in the least. I guess I'm getting used to your liar-liar-pants on fire responses for those who don't see so-called evidence in the same way you do. You've been shown time and time again that everyone isn't willing to use the amount of imagination you do to fill in the gaps.

 

[keith99]

Evolutionary theory is settled science, and therefore it is taught in science class. Like Atomic Theory or the Germ Theory or the Theory of Gravitation.

Of course Newton's gravitational model has been shown to be wrong.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your answer doesn't surprise me in the least. I guess I'm getting used to your liar-liar-pants on fire responses for those who don't see so-called evidence in the same way you do. You've been shown time and time again that everyone isn't willing to use the amount of imagination you do to fill in the gaps.

You have demonstrated, time and time again, that you lack the basic grounding in the evidence that would entitle you to have an opinion on the matter. Therefore, if you continue to make your fatuous, unsupported comments, I shall continue to note their failure.

Your mounted a cynical pretence to be genuinely interested in an exchange of views and an acquisition of the knowledge you currently lack. That ship sailed some time ago. All your posts do now is reveal that your faith is weak and your knowledge of evolutionary theory even weaker. Quit while you are merely behind.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course Newton's gravitational model has been shown to be wrong.

I didn't specify Newton, but nonetheless... we do still teach Newton's theory in school, because it is very nearly right, and right enough for almost all purposes. And if you go far enough in school, you learn GR.

As Asimov noted "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Anything that replaces evolution will be close enough to it that it'll be as hard to tell the difference as it is between the actual shape of the earth and a sphere.

 

[keith99]

Early-on academia’s 'believers in science only' promoted evolution aggressively as being the intellectual truth, and with the separation of church and state there was no resistance within the school system based on religious grounds. Of course our Supreme Court has never considered evolution as a religious belief, so it had a green light to go. Those in government and educational administration who knew very little about biology, accepted the TOE, not wanting to appear ignorant themselves. Higher education institutions ratcheted-up teaching the theory and indoctrinated future teachers. That was all that was needed for those wishing to take Creation out of the classroom to get a widespread foothold with TOE, and from there it has only snowballed, even to the point of being 'considered as' and 'accepted as' proven now. Honestly, it wouldn't have been wise to allow the promotion of religions in the school system, and proponents of evolution were crafty enough to piggy-back and pass off their belief as science. So all our children can really do is trust in the Lord for guidance and rely on it when TOE is presented to them as fact.

Wow, getting history wrong also. You never heard of the Scopes Trial?

 

[keith99]

Darwin had his doubts and he did acknowledge that his theory would require lots of transitional forms as proof. He apparently thought they would be found over time, but no such luck yet.

“It was perfectly obvious to Darwin and his contemporaries, who had the difficult task of convincing their skeptical colleagues of the validity of evolution, that transitional forms were essential to the credibility of their claims. The fact that they were largely missing was acknowledged to be a major flaw in their argument.” Denton (ETC) Page 158

“While Darwin was attempting to convince the world of the validity of evolution by natural selection he was admitting privately to friends to moments of doubt over its capacity to generate very complicated adaptations or "organs of extreme perfection", as he described them. In a letter to Asa Gray, the American biologist, written in 1861, just two years after the publication of The Origin Of Species, he acknowledges these doubts and admits that "the eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." Denton (ETC) Page 326

Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Biological Evolution and Origin of Species

This is 'interesting' because Darwin showed in detail in The Origin of Species not only what steps it would take to lead to teh eye he showed that all those steps were present in the Mollusk family.

 

[keith99]

I didn't specify Newton, but nonetheless... we do still teach Newton's theory in school, because it is very nearly right, and right enough for almost all purposes. And if you go far enough in school, you learn GR.

As Asimov noted "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Anything that replaces evolution will be close enough to it that it'll be as hard to tell the difference as it is between the actual shape of the earth and a sphere.

Quite. And Newtons theory is good enough to get us to the moon or Mars. But it might have a problem with Mercury if we take a rather non-direct route (e.g taking a few centuries to get to where Mercury should be at that time).

Note that scientists noted this problem about 200 years ago.