Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Underdog77]

I voted yes but there are some conditions. Evolution should be PRESENTED in schools ALONG WITH creationism. If creationism is to be supressed then all beliefs in that region of education should be as well, including evolution.

 

[Underdog77]

Evolution is a historical science. Evolution in some ways is observable and some ways not. I think they should state the observable as fact, then state the theory as such. The Theory of Evolution does not invoke the supernatural so, yes, it should be taught in school.

How is it observable? When have we humans observed it?

 

[Underdog77]

1. It is a valid science

It is a valid belief system.

2. It is considered by practically all scientists in relevant fields to be the best theory we have

Not true. There are many scientists in relevant fields who do not believe in evolution. Besides since when do Christians blindly follow the majority? If we did that we would end up with the majority in hell.

3. It has stood up to all the trials and tests and it is still ticking, with an overwhelming amount of evidence and proof backing it up

It has stood up after changing repeatedly. The theory of evolution is much different today than it was back in the days of Darwin and Lylle.

The statement made above could be true about creationism as well. "Creationsm has stood up to all trials and tests and it is still ticking, with an overwhelming amount of evidence and proof backing it up."

 

[Underdog77]

The problem with teaching Creationism, which is based on religious belief, is that you would have to teach EVERY religiously based creation concept, giving each one equal time. You would have to teach the Hindu creation teachings, those of the various Native American Indians, etc, etc.

a) I don't think many people would care if Hindu, etc... wasn't taught. If they do then we ought to give some time to them.
b) The 'religiously based concept' of creationism is no less valid than the religiously speculative THEORY of evolution.

 

[Underdog77]

By the way, is Creationism a uniquely an American phenomena?

It is interesting. One person may say that Creationism is uniquely an American phenomenia but another may say that so isChristianity to some extent. It seems to me that wherever Creationism exists, Christianity does as well. Wherever it doesn't exist, Christianity doesn't either.

This leads me to believe that Christianity and Creationism go hand in hand (this isn't too wild since creationism is founded in the Bible).

Think about it, as the center of Christianity moved from Asia Minor and its surroundings to Northwestern Europe to America, so did the idea of creationism.

 

[notto]

There are many scientists in relevant who believe evolution

Name 3 in the field of biology who think this due to scientific evidence and not religious belief. Name 3 in the field who have published anything that states these view in a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed or published and is based on actual research and falsification and not philosophy.

Name 1.

 

[Underdog77]

Name 3 in the field of biology who think this due to scientific evidence and not religious belief. Name 3 in the field who have published anything that states these view in a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed or published and is based on actual research and falsification and not philosophy.

Name 1.

1) You cunningly put these restrictions on the qualifications of the scientists. You say give three names that have been reviewed by peers, but if these peers disagree with the three then it doesn't matter what I give. I have no doubt that a majority of scientists believe evolution (just as the majority does not believe in christianity) and with this majority they can 'discredit' anyone creationist I present to you. So I really don't care whether it was peer reviewed. I do care if it makes sense, has not been debunked, and agrees with what God says.

2) I'll get at least three names but first I want to check up on their exact credentials so I don't give you a foothold against them.

 

[tryptophan]

I hear many people say that evolution and creationism should be taught side by side. But how can creationism be taught in a science class if there is no evidence to back it up?

Edited.

 

[jbarcher]

Let me just close this for a moment.

Edit: This thread will be opened by another mod at a later time.

 

[herev]

Alright, we're going to re-open this thread, please be considerate of not only each other, but the rules on this forum. Thanks

 

[Bulldog]

1) You cunningly put these restrictions on the qualifications of the scientists. You say give three names that have been reviewed by peers, but if these peers disagree with the three then it doesn't matter what I give. I have no doubt that a majority of scientists believe evolution (just as the majority does not believe in christianity) and with this majority they can 'discredit' anyone creationist I present to you. So I really don't care whether it was peer reviewed. I do care if it makes sense, has not been debunked, and agrees with what God says.

He is merely requiting you to make a valid appeal to authority. An invalid authority happens when:

• The erson is ot an authority in the subject
• Most other experts in the field disagree
• the eperson must not be drunk (or othe rsimiliar condition when the) statement was made

If you cannot fit these, then it is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

~God Bless