Teaching Children Evolution

[Beckijhn]

Zara - I thank you for reminding what kind of moth it was. I still don't see how it is in any way remotely representative of a monkey turning into a man. Species do adjust to their environment and sometimes they change <gasp>, but I've not yet seen a cat turn into a dog - or visa versa, nor have I ever seen any fossils of a cat/dog in the process of changing. Or any other species for that matter.

I agree that evolution is based on much more than the five I mentioned, they are only the posterboys of evolution and the best 'scientific' evidence anyone has come up with yet, thus my use of them.

By the way, you might be interested to note that I'm the one who said I DO teach my kids both sides and SPECIFICALLY chose History and Science books to present both sides....

Oh yea, when was the last time you saw creation taught in a public school? You might be lecturing the wrong people! I'm not afraid of the truth - are they?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My kids have been hearing about evolution from day one. My son loves the "Land Before Time" series of movies and it started right there. So I started there too! I explained the truth on his level and explained that some people don't believe in God and want to make everyone think their way and discredit Christian beliefs. Etc etc.

But you've just taught your first misrepresentation to your son. Evolution is not atheism, and it was not formulated to do away with God, but as a simple and honest response to the evidence.

I have no doubt that Creation will stand on it's own - with or without me!

Then why misrepresent evolution?

I agree that evolution is based on much more than the five I mentioned, they are only the posterboys of evolution and the best 'scientific' evidence anyone has come up with yet, thus my use of them.

But they are not! Let's take them in turn:

Neanderthal man - advanced. Yes. He is. Argument rages over whether he's the same species or not as us. But he's not our ancestor, and is not promoted as such

Cro-Magnon man - the same as us. Yes, he is. He is the same sub-species as us - Homo sapiens sapiens. We know that. Homo habilis and Homo erectus are more interesting.

Java man - you've been mis-informed. Java man was not a gibbon - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html

Peking man - a lot more was found than your sources have told you - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html

Piltdown man - hardly a posterboy for evolution. He'd hardly got a look in for years before the hoax was uncovered because he didn't fit in with the pattern of human evolution otherwise discovered.

There is much better scientific evidence of evolution than this - Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Ambulocetus, Cytochrome C, retro-viral insertions - I would not pick your five "posterboys" as being the best evidence. You have been misinformed.

 

[Beckijhn]

No I really don't think so. I've only been to five or six lectures, I've read a few books, I've studied the Bible, and I haven't read many in depth scientific text books that promote evolution, so I may not be as up on some of the terminology and 'evidence' scientists site but I do know this: God states in his word that he created the earth in 7 days, evidence supports creation.

There is absolutely no way this world is billions of years old. It's just not possible. Nor did I evolve from some ape creature. You want to claim it as your heritage go ahead. I descended from Adam and Eve and thereafter Noah and his wife. Much later I can lay claim to many nations converging in America, but nowhere in there is there a primate type creature (or pond scum).

My representation to my son is quite correct. Man and dinosaur were on the earth at the same time. there is fossil evidence of this in the form of molded foot prints as well as other evidence. There was no comet, there was no major volcanic activity driving them to distinction - not as a world wide catastrophy and not millions of years before man.

Forgive my generalization of evolutionist/atheists. It is a general representation of the people I know that believe this way. It is impossible for me to reconcile someone who is a Christian saying they disbelieve part of the Bible - whether by saying it's just a story or by saying that it was 'written by man' and attempting to discredit God's word (to my way of seeing it).

If I never knew any more than what God told my in His word, and never learned a thing about evolution or anything along those lines, I'd still KNOW the God is right and anything against him/his word is wrong.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It is impossible for me to reconcile someone who is a Christian saying they disbelieve part of the Bible - whether by saying it's just a story or by saying that it was 'written by man' and attempting to discredit God's word (to my way of seeing it).

But that's not the issue. I have written here - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm why it's not about "disbelieving" part of the Bible.

I've shown that you have some facts wrong - facts I imagine you gained from creationist sources - I've seem the claims elsewhere. If you've been misled there, where else? (Actually, from your post, one answer to that is the footprints. There are no dinosaur and human footprints in the same rocks - even Answers in Genesis admits that).

Feel free not to accept the evidence. But please don't pass on misinformation.

 

[ZaraDurden]

Beckijhn-

I did not state that the peppered moth was representative of any of larger scale of evolution. I was merely stating that evolution does exist, and this is a fact. The only part of evolution that is not accepted as fact is macroevolution, which is when a species evolves into another species.

"nor have I ever seen any fossils of a cat/dog in the process of changing. Or any other species for that matter."

Well, I am not sure if you really meant to say fossil there. Fossils do not change... they are a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the earth's crust. Maybe you are speaking of DNA? If this is what you mean, you have admitted to seeing DNA change when you recognized the validity of the peppered moth. The darker color of the moth changed from being the recessive gene to the dominant one in that population.

As Karl said, those are not the posterboys.

I know you said you do teach your children evolution. But, you said you teach them that creationism is fact and evolution is fiction when, in reality, evidence suggests otherwise. My arguement is that you are not giving your kids a chance to discover the truth on their own. If you presented both sides equally, but creation is true, shouldnt your kids be able to find that out on their own?

Its funny you ask about the creationism in science books, because i graduated high school last year. I took biology no more than 4 years ago, and creationism was actually in my book. No specific religion's creationism, but just that one theory is that a deity created the earth.

I dont think you afraid of the truth, i just dont think you are being fair to the possibility of evolution or to your own childrens knowledge of the world.

 

[Beckijhn]

Karl - you didn't show me that my facts are wrong at all. You stated a belief from sources that are different from the beliefs I have or the sources I quoted have. I could very easily ask you not to pass on misinformation as well, since I am sure that your information is wrong. LOL I haven't read your article yet but will look at it tonight.

Zara - I did mean fossils for cats changing into dogs and I know fossils don't actually CHANGE, I meant a species that is EVOLVING (there has to be a remnant of a species mid-evolution for this whole evolution thing to be real but I've not ever seen one.... Have you?)

I have yet to see real solid evidence that is not hype and hot air showing anything that proves evolution (or disproves God's account of creation). So yes, I'm quite on target in telling my kids the truth. My kids think outside the box, they don't have any problem discerning fact from fiction so I'm not really worried about their not knowing about the world around them. They are more solidly grounded than most people I know - adult or child.

It's nice to know that biology these days teaches about creation, even if it is stated as a theory. When I was in high school I had to fight to have Creation taught as a possible event.

 

[Beckijhn]

Karl - perused the article you wrote. I will still say and do believe that if you do not believe the Bible in it's entirety then you should throw it all out. It is either God breathed or it's the biggest book of lies there ever was. I believe it's true.

And Yes there are rock with dinosaur and man prints in it. Saw a pic of it once, my dad saw one too (different than the one I saw) in a Geology class he took as continuing education for a public school teacher. I guess that was before they threw God out of schools.

I think it comes down to this. You quote people you believe, I quote people I believe, you cite your evidence, I cite mine. In the end no one has PROVEN anything and I still believe you are wrong. ~smile~

I chose to believe God's word (in it's entirety!)

 

[ZaraDurden]

"there has to be a remnant of a species mid-evolution for this whole evolution thing to be real but I've not ever seen one.... Have you?"

Actually, i have. To say there are no trasitional fossils is false. I am not allowed to post links myself, but i ask you to take 10 minutes and search for them on the internet. Any non-christian but reliable website will have a pleathera of pictures of trasition fossils, more than 1 or 2.

"or disproves God's account of creation"

I guess you dont frequent the Science, Evolution and Creationism forum. Not only has the biblical flood been proven physically impossible, the discovery of the epic tale Gilgamesh, which predates the bible by thousands of years, has shown that the biblical flood is just a retelling of an existing flood myth, not an original story.

"Yes there are rock with dinosaur and man prints in it. Saw a pic of it once"

It is perplexing to me that you can believe in a picture that shows man and dino living together when mounds and mounds of evidence that the scientific community actually accepts as authentic says otherwise.

This has made me decide to lay down the hammer... for this thread anyway... have fun always, beclijhn!

 

[Beckijhn]

Yep - I'm outta here. I got into this discussion because it has to do with parenting and teaching our children. I stay in because I believe I'm right.

Creation Science is very real and I believe Chino AZ houses over 600 of them dedicated to answering questions having to do with Science and God. I urge you to do a search that looks at Creation and science.

The flood is the one undeniable world wide event that all cultures remember in some way or another. That would tend to emphasize it's validity since all people are descended from Shem Ham or Japheth and they were all there. In addition to having sea creature fossils all over the world (and I mean ALL) there is other evidence of the event as well.

You might want to watch which society you hang with. There are many things accepted by different sects of society that I would never accept or believe. It goes with which ring you throw you hat in. There are as many scientist that don't accept evolution as those that do. I believe it was an evolutionist that stated that the chances of getting all the parts of one strand of DNA to combine at the same time with the right number of enzymes would be a chance less than 10 to the neg 40000 (10 with 39,999 zeros behind it). Another evolutionist said that was optimistic and for that to happen would equate with a miracle (something else about that not happening even if the whole world were made of organic soup... Heard it tonight but didn't take notes).

Oh one last thing - the Bible mentions dinosaurs too. If you just throw out Genesis - or at least the creation part, and don't throw out the rest you might look at where dinosars and people are together in the Bible.

I'm sure it's been mentioned in the Evolution/Creation forum.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My closing comments:

Yep - I'm outta here. I got into this discussion because it has to do with parenting and teaching our children. I stay in because I believe I'm right.

Creation Science is very real and I believe Chino AZ houses over 600 of them dedicated to answering questions having to do with Science and God. I urge you to do a search that looks at Creation and science.

I am sure I have read more creationist material than you have read mainstream science. The problem is that the creationist material does not actually hold up to scrutiny.

The flood is the one undeniable world wide event that all cultures remember in some way or another.

Curiously, only cultures that settled near river valleys have flood myths, not "all" as you assert. I wonder why that might be? I wonder why there is no single world-wide flood deposit in the geological record? Why Catal Huyuk, 5,000 years and more old, has no flood evidence in it?

That would tend to emphasize it's validity since all people are descended from Shem Ham or Japheth and they were all there.

It might be were it true. It isn't.

In addition to having sea creature fossils all over the world (and I mean ALL)

Yes. And mainstream science knows how they got there. What the flood model can't explain is the distribution. Mainstream science can. Do you have a reason why trilobites are always found in different strata to bony fish?

there is other evidence of the event as well.

Assertion is meaningless. Only evidence counts.

You might want to watch which society you hang with. There are many things accepted by different sects of society that I would never accept or believe. It goes with which ring you throw you hat in. There are as many scientist that don't accept evolution as those that do.

Nonsense. I believe the proportions are something like 95% mainstream to 5% creationist. Which society I hang with? In my country, young Earth creationism is a fringe belief held by a tiny minority of extreme fundamentalist Christians. The vast majority of UK Christians find it ridiculous.

I believe it was an evolutionist that stated that the chances of getting all the parts of one strand of DNA to combine at the same time with the right number of enzymes would be a chance less than 10 to the neg 40000 (10 with 39,999 zeros behind it).

Wouldn't matter, because (a) that's not evolution, and (b) that's not even how biogenesis is believed to have occured. Why calculate the odds of something no-one's proposing?

Another evolutionist said that was optimistic and for that to happen would equate with a miracle (something else about that not happening even if the whole world were made of organic soup... Heard it tonight but didn't take notes).

Names would be nice. And references.

Oh one last thing - the Bible mentions dinosaurs too. If you just throw out Genesis - or at least the creation part,

I DO NOT THROW OUT GENESIS. I HAVE LINKED YOU TO MY ARTICLE DEMONSTRATING I DO NOT THROW OUT GENESIS. STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS. THIS ANGERS ME.

and don't throw out the rest you might look at where dinosars and people are together in the Bible.

Behemoth and Leviathan? Rather flimsy. They don't resemble dinosaurs. Every culture has mythical beasts - here are two middle-eastern ones. If they're not just hippopotami and crocodiles....

I'm sure it's been mentioned in the Evolution/Creation forum.

It has. And thoroughly debunked.

 

[AndOne]

Why not go debate this in the evolution/creation forum then - and let those of us with kids discuss this issue in peace.

 

[Beckijhn]

I read your comments and disagree with them but refuse to argue. As I said you cite your sources I'll cite mine. The author of all things is the author I'll believe.

I am sorry if I offended on the Genesis thing. I have a hard time reading articles that are so off track to my way of thinking that I did actually peruse but no further.

I would be unable to believe a book halfway so maybe that's what angers you so? I'm not attacking you. As to the references I was watching a four part lecture on the halos found in the basement granite of the earth proving that instant creation is the only explanation. I only caught part of the next segment talking about instant creation of one single itty bitty cell wich never has and never will happen. Then I had to go get the kids from a party at the church. I'll post the names when I hear it again. It was last nights Creation Forum on Angel One.

 

[kingzjewel]

ya know i got a little worried when i saw the topic of this discussion and needless to say the worry has been upgraded to concrete fear. i hate debates. this has turned into a battle. i believe in God and His creation whole heartedly and from the evidence i have been presented with, studied for my own curiosity, and the new evidence found every so often i have come to the conclusion that God's creation is the only way to truly explain how we have come to be. all my searching and skepticism brought me to a strong firm belief in God when i started with virtually none. i am teaching my child creation and will talk about evolution in the context of theory. if he feels he needs to research more then so be it , but God will reveal the truth in the end regardless of what i say. thats all i wanted to say on the subject.

 

[platzapS]

So, overall, the parents here reccoment teaching Young-Earth Creationism as fact?

 

[desi]

I have 5 children and about a year or so ago my 5 year old son asked me where people come from. I looked at my wife who looked at me and we grabbed our Bible on the way over to the computer. I read my son Genesis and told him how God made the world and people. Then I looked up evolution on google and found the picture of the neanderthal standing by modern man. I explained how some people think people came from monkeys who changed a little bit over a long time. Then I told him God might have used this process to make the first man Adam. I felt I had to be open and honest with him now or he would think I misled him later in life. It is important for Christians not to view science as 'the enemy' but to view it as the mechanism of God's creation.

 

[IslandBreeze]

Desi-- God is hardly a monkey. Considering the fact that we were created in HIS image, I do not believe that God evolved men out of monkeys.

 

[obediah001]

Evolution should be taught a s it is the dominant philosohy in the world today & must be understood in order to withstand its deceptions & see thru its errors. Evolution is a symptom of the rebellion against God; this becomes clear when one studies the lives & written works of these proponents in academia. It is their religious effront to God of the Bible - Jesus.

 

[DoomMoose]

Evolution should be taught a s it is the dominant philosohy in the world today & must be understood in order to withstand its deceptions & see thru its errors. Evolution is a symptom of the rebellion against God; this becomes clear when one studies the lives & written works of these proponents in academia. It is their religious effront to God of the Bible - Jesus.

Could you give some examples of the lives and works of the proponents
in academia that you are talking about.

 

[armed2010]

Evolution should be taught a s it is the dominant philosohy in the world today & must be understood in order to withstand its deceptions & see thru its errors. Evolution is a symptom of the rebellion against God; this becomes clear when one studies the lives & written works of these proponents in academia. It is their religious effront to God of the Bible - Jesus.

Yes, im sure evolution was thought up clearly on the basis of rebelling against God

 

[obediah001]

Well try the former head of UNESCO Aldus Huxley who was a strong proponant of Evolution. His was a classic fo-pau statement about why evolution became so popular so quick, when asked on Public TV he said "Well I supose it was becasue the idea of god interferes with our sexual morays." As for the many examples of presently living scientists proffessors check out the debate videos at drdino.com they are classics!