Why is evolution taught in our schools?

Halbhh said:

God can do that.

God created all that is, meaning therefore also the laws of nature too -- physics and chemistry. They are His.

And they work.

What He made works.

Click to expand...

He also gave us the order of creation which contradicts evolutionary thought. Right from the start we automatically know which process wasn't used.

xianghua said:

id is also science, and no one teach it at school.

Click to expand...

Actually it is not science because it attempts to treat as fact that which is not in evidence.

Halbhh said:

God created all that is, meaning therefore also the laws of nature too -- physics and chemistry.

Click to expand...

And He did it in 4004 BC, didn't He?

xianghua said:

no problem. here are several cars:

(image from Ferrari fanatic selling 8 cars to make room for more)

now...lets say that these cars were able to reproduce like a living creature and may even had DNA. do you think that in this case the best explanation for their similarity will be design rather than common descent?

Click to expand...

There is a problem. It is your behaviour.

You have not yet addressed this point:

Ophiolite said:

There is evidence for evolution. You may not agree with the evidence. You may choose to ignore the evidence on the grounds of faith or scripture. These are acceptable options. But if you deny that there is evidence then you are either a liar, a fool, or a charlatan.

Click to expand...

Now please do one of the following:
1. Withdraw your statement that there is no evidence for evolution.
2. Admit to being a liar, a fool, or a charlatan. (Ideally identify which one you are.)

If and only if you do this promptly and in your next post, then I shall consider answering your question.

JackRT said:

Whenever I see a poster talk about theories being proven or unproven, I know immediately that the poster knows next to nothing about science and how science works. Theories are models about how something works based on a great deal of observation and much testing. However, theories are always tentative and provisional in that it is never possible to have all the evidence. It is always possible that new evidence will require that the theory be modified, or in some cases, discarded completely. The history of science is filled with examples of this. The word 'proof' simple does not apply in science the way it does in logic or in mathematics. What then can we say about evolution? We know from observation that evolution is a fact --- life on this planet has changed dramatically over time and that change continues even today. That fact cannot be argued. But what drives that change? How exactly does it work? That is where the theory of evolution comes in. However, this being said, it is possible to disprove the theory of evolution. All that would be needed are solid facts. That has not happened in the century and a half since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory.

Creationist Todd Woods wrote:



A very honest man!

Click to expand...

By the sounds of it, Todd Wood is not actively pursuing evolutionary explanations as his preferred interpretation of observed phenomenon. I was just reading one of his papers...

A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae) - creation.com

AV1611VET said:

And He did it in 4004 BC, didn't He?

Click to expand...

My Bible says God created the Earth before Adam left the Garden, and also before day one in Genesis 1.

Just the words i see.

We can figure the time from after Adam left the Garden until Christ.

(But focusing on numerical time durations can distract from truly listening and getting the real messages, which are deeper, profound, not about mere quantities.)

hopperace said:

Thus, today, the Western scientific paradigm is that theology is divorced from science, where once theology was considered the "queen of the sciences".

Click to expand...

You seem to act as if that were a recent development when in fact theology being the queen of the sciences was a Medieval concept and long sense left in the metaphorical rear view mirror during the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

hopperace said:

The bottom line is that as long as evolutionary theory is judicially thought sanitised from religion, which imo it is not, it will be included in U.S. educational impetus.

Click to expand...

Please, do go on.

hopperace said:

A better plan, imo, is to consider all theories of origins...

Click to expand...

Whenever I see Creationists use phrases like "theories of origins" my weasel word radar starts to blip. While Darwin used the phrase "origin of the species" in the title of his book, evolution really isn't about origin per se - and even less so now in the era of the Modern Synthesis - but about diversity and explaining why we observe the diversity of living things on earth now and in the fossil record.

That said, I'm curious as to what other "theories of origins" you think student should "consider" in the science classroom.

YeshuaFan said:

Evolution is taught because the mindset is that there is no need for a God, so fits what into the agenda being pushed by secular education.

Click to expand...

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.

YeshuaFan said:

We should teach both evolution and Intelligent Design in the schools!

Click to expand...

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

Galdrun said:

You know, in my christian homeschooling curriculum, I was taught creationism instead of evolution. Looking at the creationist hypotheses that I learned almost 2 decades ago vs. the hypotheses put forward now: they are new and completely different. It's like the old ideas weren't panning out, so they just tossed them out and drew up something new.

Click to expand...

Cam you give a couple of examples how they are new and completely different? Thanks

AV1611VET said:

Yes, it does.

That is correct.

That's why it's not science ... it is a series of miracles whereby God brought mass and energy into existence, then raised it to its current level over a period of six days.

What do you call history class?

And as far as "nothing to teach," here's a copy/paste from another thread:

Here's a test I made up:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
4. The triune Godhead is a violation of what scientific law?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that the people doing well on your test will grow up to cure cancer and stuff with that information.

xianghua said:

now...lets say that these cars were able to reproduce like a living creature and may even had DNA.

Click to expand...

Why stop there?
Let's say they are flying indestructable time machines that can travel anywhere in the universe instantaneously. Let's also say that they are powered by sucking the magical life out of miniature golden extra-dimensional unicorns.

I mean, as long as we're making stuff up...

do you think that in this case the best explanation for their similarity will be design rather than common descent?

Click to expand...

No, in that case obviously the best explanation would be that I farted them into existance.

Because let's say that my farts result in indestructable flying time machines that look like ferarri's, but aren't actually ferarri's.

It actually is an interesting question. It's obvious why creationism isn't being taught. It's a religious theory. But imagine a society in which the people writing curriculum think creationism is true, but there's still the 1st amendment. You'd expect that they simply wouldn't talk about origins, or would say "there are many ideas about ..." Approaches like this have been tried and generally thrown out by the courts.

It seems clear that by and large schools are controlled (either directly or as a result of court decisions) by people who accept scientific models. Just as they teach about the holocaust, a round earth, and that a person has gone to the moon even though some people deny these things (though a very small number). Basically our schools are committed to teaching what's objectively true, even if people disagree.

You can see how this developed from the 1st amendment, since the people disagreeing with this consensus on what is true seem to do so largely for religious reasons. But it's not so clear to me that the 1st amendment actually mandates that the schools teach what's true.

This could become an issue if politics continue the way they seem to be going. It's not clear how much protection we have against schools teaching politically-based untruth. Could a school teach in American history that Obama wasn't as US citizen? I'm not sure that there's any legal basis for stopping it.

SeventyOne said:

He also gave us the order of creation which contradicts evolutionary thought. Right from the start we automatically know which process wasn't used.

Click to expand...

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.

Aman777 said:

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.

Click to expand...

More interesting yet, it doesn't even show a hint of evolution at all.

xianghua said:

id is also science, and no one teach it at school.

Click to expand...

What is scientific about ID - and please , no analogies to human activity. Here, we are referring to Intelligent Design Creationism.

YeshuaFan said:

We should teach both evolution and Intelligent Design in the schools!

Click to expand...

There is evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that point to evolution.

What, specifically, do you think could be taught regarding ID in schools that is not religious in nature?

SeventyOne said:

He also gave us the order of creation which contradicts evolutionary thought. Right from the start we automatically know which process wasn't used.

Click to expand...

Yes - creation. For it is contradicted by the actual evidence.

tas8831 said:

What is scientific about ID - and please , no analogies to human activity. Here, we are referring to Intelligent Design Creationism.

Click to expand...

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

JackRT said:

Actually it is not science because it attempts to treat as fact that which is not in evidence.

Click to expand...

isnt it a fact that motors need design?

Ophiolite said:

There is a problem. It is your behaviour.

You have not yet addressed this point:

Now please do one of the following:
1. Withdraw your statement that there is no evidence for evolution.
2. Admit to being a liar, a fool, or a charlatan. (Ideally identify which one you are.)

Click to expand...

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?