Should Schools be Required to Teach Evolution?

[Paradoxum]

You can say whatever you want. I strongly support the 1st amendment and human rights . . . can you credibly criticize my understanding of science? Not at your age, you haven't had long enough to have done enough at university.

Actually at my age many have finished university. Age has little to do with it once you finish school. Many older people are much more ignorant of science than me. We could even find some sort of science test/quiz on the internet if you wish? Of course no internet searches allowed for help.

That is all, not a slam, just an acknowledgement of reality, kinda like 9 year olds and high school, the 9 year old simply hasn't had enough time to be there yet, doesn't mean they won't eventually and maybe get better grades but time. . . is something humans can only move one direction through.

Except that isn't true. Any intelligent, well informed 16 year old can know much more about science than many adults. If that 16 year old then spend the next few years reading up on science then they will probably know most than most about it. Not including actual scientists of course.

Don't you think Fundamentalists say the other side of the coin? "Puddle of goo begetting all plant and animal life by random chance" isn't a proven fact, why would you call it other than myth.

I would agree that saying an animal magically crawled out of a muddle of goo would be sort of mythic and simplistic.

Both sides have a right to criticize the other for stating their origin of life view is fact. Til it is decided, conclusively, with real science. . . I'd prefer the intellectual honesty of saying "we don't know yet, but here are some of the ways we are trying to find out".

Well yeah, we don't know... as far as I know anyway. I would be quite ok with a thing on the side explaining that it seems to be possible that life began by abiogenesis, and then explains what it is and one or two experiments to do with it. I'm not saying that the book should say we know. Obviously people are going to ask how scientists believe life started, you can't just be like, 'I'm not telling you".

The best guess. . . . I say everybody's best guess, opinion, wish, personal revelation from plate bearing angel, insight from Bhudda, or Holy Dice Roll, should all get equal billing in the how life began best guesses and wishes class . .. most call mythology.

Was Plato born from a woman or brought down by a stalk? Well both are myths right? Of course not, they are no equal opinions. Magic doesn't get to drag reason down to its level. One has been proven to be much more successful than the other.

Then, you should reread them until reading comprehension catches up.

Oooooh, cut me deep.

Not the same meaning, but an unproven hypothesis is not more valuable or factual than any other unproven hypothesis until such a time as it becomes a proven hypothesis.

Well that sounds nice, but we know there is a difference between my 'Plato was born' hypothesis and Stalk theory. One is consistent with reality, the other is magic.

I believe I could make you grow a pair of big red zits on your forehead, positioned just like Loki horns, with the power of my mind. . . . . and zap! They aren't there yet are they? It is not proven that I can do that. It isn't exactly dis-proven either though. . .

That isn't the same.

I could do a lot of experiments to try and form zits on someones forehead through brain waves, but it isn't anything but an unproven hypothesis until I. . . not only succeed, but can replicate the results. That is science.

Well you would be right that I phrased my comment wrongly. Abiogenesis would appear to be possible.

 

[Tomk80]

Regardless of whether I think it is true or not (I haven't disclosed my views in this thread, but you can find them in my profile) . . . we can pretty much dress any myth up as science and discard the rest can't we?

No, we cannot.

What is proven. . . and the pursuit of knowledge thereof, is science. Origin of life myths without supporting data are not science.

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

Nothing in science is proven. There is only evidence for and against.
Origins of life theories have supporting data. The theory of evolution has massive supporting data.

Huh. . . . this is unlike evolution as presented by Carl Sagan in what way? The concept has been around for about 100 years. . . . I think that kinda fits traditional. Ostensibly historical events, yup . . . to explain natural phenomenon, well there ya have it. Shake your fist at Merriam Webster if it makes you happy, but words have meanings & we don't always have to like their implications.

Given that it is a scientific theory that arose out of the data, it is not sacred (it has been adapted to the evidence multiple times), it does not include supernatural events and is not used to relay an ideology, no it is not a myth.

 

[Tomk80]

As per your statement, I realize that is what YOU believe about me. Science isn't just one theory or one set of facts, excepting some while discounting others, is what people do. LOL, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
If you're looking for a "newbie creationist" to argue with or try and talk down to, it isn't me. Get yourself a new argument cause that one is way over used.

No, but understanding science involves a number of things. Things you got wrong.

"I realize science is valuable when educating our children but since science cannot prove evolution as fact of our origin"

Is wrong, because science can never prove anything as fact of anything. The only thing it can do is create an overarching framework for a phenomenon (a theory) and provide evidence for that framework. The theory of evolution has a lot of evidence to support it.

By the way, this "Science isn't just one theory or one set of facts" is wrong as well. While in some areas there can be multiple theories, with too little evidence to decide in favor of one of them, in general science aims at oneoverarching explanation of a set of facts. That is the goal of science. Scientists are not social constructivists. Looking at the theory of evolution, it really is the only game in town.

 

[carole2u]

No, but understanding science involves a number of things. Things you got wrong.

"I realize science is valuable when educating our children but since science cannot prove evolution as fact of our origin"

Is wrong, because science can never prove anything as fact of anything. The only thing it can do is create an overarching framework for a phenomenon (a theory) and provide evidence for that framework. The theory of evolution has a lot of evidence to support it.

By the way, this "Science isn't just one theory or one set of facts" is wrong as well. While in some areas there can be multiple theories, with too little evidence to decide in favor of one of them, in general science aims at oneoverarching explanation of a set of facts. That is the goal of science. Scientists are not social constructivists. Looking at the theory of evolution, it really is the only game in town.

Tom,

People view science and it's theories differently. Obviously you are more passionate about those that I am not, and that's OK. No, I am not an authority on scientific theory, nor am I an idiot, I realize the good that has come from science. I just choose to not accept science's theory on the origins of life, not because my poor little brain cant take it in, but because my FAITH says otherwise. If that offends you, well, I can't change that, won't even try too.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Tom,

People view science and it's theories differently. Obviously you are more passionate about those that I am not, and that's OK. No, I am not an authority on scientific theory, nor am I an idiot, I realize the good that has come from science. I just choose to not accept science's theory on the origins of life, not because my poor little brain cant take it in, but because my FAITH says otherwise. If that offends you, well, I can't change that, won't even try too.

And how do you justify your faith?

If I had faith that gravity is just a myth, and the real reason we don't fly off into space is because the angels hold us to the ground.... would that be justified?

As silly as it sounds, it's completely analogous to what your belief is.

 

[carole2u]

If that is YOUR true belief, what need is there to justify it?
I don't suffer the incessant need that many do to have people justify every little thing, especially personal choice.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If that is YOUR true belief, what need is there to justify it?
I don't suffer the incessant need that many do to have people justify every little thing, especially personal choice.

So you see no need to have reason to believe what you believe? It's completely OK to just make up answers and believe them as if they were factual?

 

[carole2u]

So you see no need to have reason to believe what you believe? It's completely OK to just make up answers and believe them as if they were factual?

That's not what I said……

Of course I have reasons for what I believe, I just don't see the need to justify that belief as it is a personal choice. If someone were to look at my life, in a face to face situation and ask me why this or that, I would share my philosophies with them not for justification but for the simple act of sharing

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's not what I said……

Of course I have reasons for what I believe, I just don't see the need to justify that belief as it is a personal choice. If someone were to look at my life, in a face to face situation and ask me why this or that, I would share my philosophies with them not for justification but for the simple act of sharing

Ok, fair enough... So what is your reason or justification behind your faith then, I'm curious.

If course you have every right to believe what you want to, but I just want to know how or why you came to that belief.

 

[xRUSTYx]

I personally believe both Creationism & Evolution should be taught. Things evolve around us daily -- Not leaps and bounds, but things do evolve.

Now, I don't believe humans came from monkey's, but no doubt, all of God's creature evolve to live in the habitat they live in

Just my .02 cents

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Now, I don't believe humans came from monkey's

Neither does anyone who understands the theory of evolution, because that's not what the theory says.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Now, I don't believe humans came from monkey's, but no doubt, all of God's creature evolve to live in the habitat they live in

Just my .02 cents

Well, that's a good thing, as the Theory of Evolution does not state that we came from monkeys.

 

[carole2u]

Ok, fair enough... So what is your reason or justification behind your faith then, I'm curious.

If course you have every right to believe what you want to, but I just want to know how or why you came to that belief.

My moniker says newbie but I know how these forums work, I've been there and done the arguing thing, it doesn't really serve a purpose other than one trying to gain a feeling of superiority over another. Even though you made a wrong assumption in your first reply to me, I won't hold it against you

I am a Christian, see my little cross? I was raised in a Christian household but didn't accept the belief as my own until 5 years ago. I chose it as personal belief thru experiences and occurrences that have helped me to develope my faith. I am a member of a church but my doctrinal beliefs are based on my own perception of the Bible, not denominational interpretation.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Actually at my age many have finished university. Age has little to do with it once you finish school.

Yeah, but what do ya do with lecherous creeps like me, who just keep going, get that degree and keep taking classes because they can. . . classes (I find science fascinating) in what they are interested in? University is a place where there is a never ending stream of available young women who . . . well, before I turned to faith and got married and all that. . . I was a very bad man, but I learned a lot. They make you stop going if you don't keep the grades up. I spent the better part of an extra decade just studying things that interested me building one thing on another. Then I officially started masters studies.

Oooooh, cut me deep.

Sorry, I was feeling a little extra snarky over my homemade waffles and local honey this morning. No offense intended. You know I value our discussions.

Well you would be right that I phrased my comment wrongly. Abiogenesis would appear to be possible.

That kind of brings up its own set of problems. Why can't scientists produce life in a lab, under ideal conditions with the optimum materials, environment, nutrients, etc? How is it that with near unlimited resources and ability to manipulate environments, they can't manage to create one creature from scratch? Yeah they can borrow genetic material from something else (cloning) but nadda from scratch. Why? I dunno. It makes me skeptical, it makes me entertain other ideas.. .. . but as a wise skeptic, I am reluctant to latch hold of some unproven idea and call it fact. The better educated the scientist, the less trouble they have admitting what they don't know. Many a TA thinks they know more than the professor. It takes courage to admit what we want to be the truth isn't proven.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My moniker says newbie but I know how these forums work, I've been there and done the arguing thing, it doesn't really serve a purpose other than one trying to gain a feeling of superiority over another.

That's not how I view forums at all... they're a place to discuss beliefs. Superiority has nothing to do with it, it's an exchange of ideas.

However, my main point is that it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion if the only point is "I believe this, because I have faith it's true". If forums operated like that, there would be no forums as there would be no basis for discussion. That's why I asked why you hold your particular belief.

Even though you made a wrong assumption in your first reply to me, I won't hold it against you

Which is why I asked for clarification lol Thanks for clarifying though!

I am a Christian, see my little cross? I was raised in a Christian household but didn't accept the belief as my own until 5 years ago. I chose it as personal belief thru experiences and occurrences that have helped me to develope my faith. I am a member of a church but my doctrinal beliefs are based on my own perception of the Bible, not denominational interpretation.

Ok, however many Christians accept Evolution, and many even deny the biblical creation story as that's the way the overwhelming evidence points.

It seems to be perfectly acceptable to accept Evolution and still remain Christian, so that's why I'm asking why you stick to believing a story that odds are very high is just a bronze age myth.

I'm not saying that to try to be insulting, but that's the simple reality of the situation.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yeah, but what do ya do with lecherous creeps like me, who just keep going, get that degree and keep taking classes because they can. . . classes (I find science fascinating) in what they are interested in? University is a place where there is a never ending stream of available young women who . . . well, before I turned to faith and got married and all that. . . I was a very bad man, but I learned a lot. They make you stop going if you don't keep the grades up. I spent the better part of an extra decade just studying things that interested me building one thing on another. Then I officially started masters studies.

Haha, fair enough. I guess my second though, that the problem is how you are using words, not your understanding of science, is the problem. For someone who apparently really likes science, why are you arguing against abiogenesis. Science and understanding the truth has always been a love of mine, and it boggles my mind why you would be trying to equate reasoned hypothesise with myth. Even when I was a conservative Christian, I didn't go against science until a Christian book misinformed me.

Sorry, I was feeling a little extra snarky over my homemade waffles and local honey this morning. No offense intended. You know I value our discussions.

It's ok. I'm surprised I took it as well as I did. I seem to get more annoyed online than I would in real life.

That kind of brings up its own set of problems. Why can't scientists produce life in a lab, under ideal conditions with the optimum materials, environment, nutrients, etc? How is it that with near unlimited resources and ability to manipulate environments, they can't manage to create one creature from scratch?

Have Scientists Ever Created Life in a Laboratory? | Evolution FAQ

"As of the time of this writing, no, scientists have never created cellular life in a laboratory from scratch. The technology simply does not yet exist to manipulate molecules with the precision required to create all of the inner workings of a cell.

However, many of the important building blocks of life have indeed been created in a laboratory, including amino acids and self-replicating RNA molecules, which are profound steps toward the goal of one day creating life."

Perhaps because we can't force life to come about quickly because we don't have the technology yet, and we can't let it happen naturally because it takes such a long time, even in ideal conditions.

Yeah they can borrow genetic material from something else (cloning) but nadda from scratch. Why? I dunno. It makes me skeptical, it makes me entertain other ideas.. .. . but as a wise skeptic, I am reluctant to latch hold of some unproven idea and call it fact. The better educated the scientist, the less trouble they have admitting what they don't know. Many a TA thinks they know more than the professor. It takes courage to admit what we want to be the truth isn't proven.

Perhaps abiogenesis hasn't been proven yet, but I'm not sure that means we move on to magic. God always gets pushed back, and some religious people say God did the thing we haven't fully understood yet. Then somehow they are surprised when scientists figure it out. Then God gets pushed back further.

How about religious people stop pushing God into a corner and just accept that God set up the world and let it run like clockwork. It really isn't that bad to think God had the intelligence to invent a universe that was capable of creating life in its own.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Haha, fair enough. I guess my second though, that the problem is how you are using words, not your understanding of science, is the problem. For someone who apparently really likes science, why are you arguing against abiogenesis. Science and understanding the truth has always been a love of mine, and it boggles my mind why you would be trying to equate reasoned hypothesise with myth. Even when I was a conservative Christian, I didn't go against science until a Christian book misinformed me.

I am not arguing against science, so much as wanting to cull religious/atheist articles of faith from actual science. I support wholeheartedly, real science. Many of my friends are scientists, in fields as diverse as disease vectors in certain mammals, bio-fuels and lubricants, forensic handwriting analysis and green energy turbines. I just feel that atheists anxious to disprove god have muddied actual sciences like abiogenesis, in their hurry . .. rushing it to be taught as scientific law vs. remembering we are dealing with hypothesis. If everybody would pull their religious (including atheists) feelings out and leave the science in, I think we'd be better off. I am not saying don't teach the real science parts, but rather pull the origin of life stuff out and leave a question mark. . . or mention it as an exciting area of study . . . but to do as Carl Sagan did, back in the Cosmos series & present "ooze to mudskipper to grandpa and orchids" as done deal, settled, scientific law is wrong . . . especially back then when science was missing the last three decades and change of significant advances.

Perhaps because we can't force life to come about quickly because we don't have the technology yet, and we can't let it happen naturally because it takes such a long time, even in ideal conditions.

I support the research & consider it real science. It is a worthy goal and may eventually lead to the ability to regrow biological limbs for veteran amputees. Believe me, I support the research. We aren't there yet & I feel muddying the science with premature shouts of triumph from the atheists damages that research. I would rather see it progress without unnecessary protests from fundamentalists.

How about religious people stop pushing God into a corner and just accept that God set up the world and let it run like clockwork. It really isn't that bad to think God had the intelligence to invent a universe that was capable of creating life in its own.

Reminds me of a U2 lyric

I can stand up for hope, faith, love But while I’m getting over certainty Stop helping God across the road like a little old lady

​

from Stand Up Comedy.


I understand what you are saying about pushing god into a corner, that is the essence of what I am trying to avoid by trying to get the fundies to quit trying to bring their religious views into the science class just because the atheists have theirs there. If we cleaned house a bit, I think it would be better for everybody . . . but that has been the whole point of all of my posts in this thread.
​

 

[Paradoxum]

I am not arguing against science, so much as wanting to cull religious/atheist articles of faith from actual science. I support wholeheartedly, real science. Many of my friends are scientists, in fields as diverse as disease vectors in certain mammals, bio-fuels and lubricants, forensic handwriting analysis and green energy turbines. I just feel that atheists anxious to disprove god have muddied actual sciences like abiogenesis, in their hurry . .. rushing it to be taught as scientific law vs. remembering we are dealing with hypothesis.

Well I agree that abiogenesis shouldn't be taught as proven until it is proven. But I think it can be in science books.

If everybody would pull their religious (including atheists) feelings out and leave the science in, I think we'd be better off.

Have atheists been saying it should be taught as an undeniable fact? Maybe we were put here by aliens from another universe.

I am not saying don't teach the real science parts, but rather pull the origin of life stuff out and leave a question mark. . . or mention it as an exciting area of study . . . but to do as Carl Sagan did, back in the Cosmos series & present "ooze to mudskipper to grandpa and orchids" as done deal, settled, scientific law is wrong . . . especially back then when science was missing the last three decades and change of significant advances.

I think I agree.

I support the research & consider it real science. It is a worthy goal and may eventually lead to the ability to regrow biological limbs for veteran amputees. Believe me, I support the research. We aren't there yet & I feel muddying the science with premature shouts of triumph from the atheists damages that research. I would rather see it progress without unnecessary protests from fundamentalists.

Fair enough.

Reminds me of a U2 lyric

I don't really know US very well.

[/I]I understand what you are saying about pushing god into a corner, that is the essence of what I am trying to avoid by trying to get the fundies to quit trying to bring their religious views into the science class just because the atheists have theirs there. If we cleaned house a bit, I think it would be better for everybody . . . but that has been the whole point of all of my posts in this thread.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

I find it interesting how some religious people try to say atheists are religious. It is as if they secretly how weak a foundation religion has, and therefore try to pretend atheists have the same problem.

 

[Glas Ridire]

I find it interesting how some religious people try to say atheists are religious. It is as if they secretly how weak a foundation religion has, and therefore try to pretend atheists have the same problem.

There is a difference between not believing in a god and not having a religion.

Merriam says this of religion:

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Certainly one can not wave the atheist flag if they have doubts (they'd then be agnostic), their attitude is one of not supporting religious organizations, they have beliefs . . . such as an origin of life that involved a cosmic dice roll per Carl Sagan type atheism or aliens of a sort per Douglas Adams . . . pretty much anything but god(s). Practices, well, very few atheists I have known fail to evangelize. When we look at a basic definition of religion, it is hard to miss that atheism is simply the religion of the godless. Agnostics on the other hand, may escape "having a religion" on the grounds that their "I don't know" leaves EVERY possibility open and therefore can't truly be said to be institutionalized. Certain Christian denominations use something like the Nicene Creed as a litmus test "agree, you are Christian/ disagree you are not" Clearly Atheists have their creed as well "Believe there are no god(s) you are an atheist, believe there may be or are & you are not". If you are uncertain and happy that way, you might be an agnostic . .. or anything else . . . doesn't quite meet the standard of institutionalized dogma. While I can agree with an agnostic who declares themselves free of religion, I don't believe atheists are.

 

[morningstar2651]

I think since creationism is the explanation for the origin of life for most people of the Christian faith that those who believe this, as I do, should teach and relate this belief to their children themselves. I would also like to see it offered as an elective taught by those who also share this belief.
At the same time, I realize science is valuable when educating our children but since science cannot prove evolution as fact of our origin, that this should also be offered as an elective to whomever wishes to learn this theory or who holds belief in it. I have no problem with kids being taught adaptation to environment as I believe this is established as fact

Science is not a "choose your own adventure" sort of class.

The whole point of education is to learn...not to confirm what you already believe.