Why is evolution being taught as fact when it's not?
- Thread starter Rising_Suns
- Start date
Hardly.
Anyway, I am going to stop posting here because I goofed up and posted this in the wrong forum to begin with and it hasn't been moved yet....suppose i'll just repost it again in the evolution forum.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
I have not known the theory of biological evolution to be taught as fact. It always seems to be taught as "the theory of biological evolution". After all, most biology textbooks (and science textbooks in general) at an introductory level explain, in detail, the scientific method. In a way, it's a disclaimer. It shows how the material in the book is compiled and judged (i.e., according to the scientific method).
However, the general concept of evolution in the sense that the word describes changes in allele frequency over time, or the change in the genetics of a population over time from generation to generation has been observed as a fact and should be taught as such.
However, the general concept of evolution in the sense that the word describes changes in allele frequency over time, or the change in the genetics of a population over time from generation to generation has been observed as a fact and should be taught as such.
Upvote
0
Hey mechanical bliss,
It's not that it's being taught as fact directly. It's just some textbooks though, assume that evolution has happened as fact in the wording of their questions, like the one i posted earlier. It just seems to me that some textbooks are giving more credit to evolution that what they really should be doing. To me, textbooks should teach mostly fact....and when its offers up a theory, it should explain the strengths AND weaknesses of the theory. This simply is not the case when you have whole chapters dedicated to topics that supposedly happened millions of years ago. It's not the topic itself that i'm concerned with. It's teaching the kids that it happened millions of years ago when there is no proof of this.
It's not that it's being taught as fact directly. It's just some textbooks though, assume that evolution has happened as fact in the wording of their questions, like the one i posted earlier. It just seems to me that some textbooks are giving more credit to evolution that what they really should be doing. To me, textbooks should teach mostly fact....and when its offers up a theory, it should explain the strengths AND weaknesses of the theory. This simply is not the case when you have whole chapters dedicated to topics that supposedly happened millions of years ago. It's not the topic itself that i'm concerned with. It's teaching the kids that it happened millions of years ago when there is no proof of this.
Upvote
0
Well france is a name for a location, a location whch you can go to and experience first hand. You can't observe what happened millions of years ago, and call your conclusion fact.
Upvote
0
This may come as a shock, but evolution didn't just happen millions of years ago. It's happening right this very second (as has been pointed out many a time in this thread).
As for France, I've never been there, have you? Why isn't the school board funding field trips to France so people can experience it first hand?
Something else taught as fact in schools, too: the 18th century. I certainly wasn't there. You weren't there either, I would assume (unless you're really, really old). And we can't go back in time to observe it (unless you have a time machine handy). Yet, stuff that (supposedly) took place in the 18th century is being taught in schools as fact.
Upvote
0
I'm not talking about micro-evolution.
This is a better comparison you drew than your last one. But it's still flawed because it's drawing a comparison between "history" and "pre-history".
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Microevolution is the only form of evolution that can be proved. It is scientific, and i am not arguing against it.
Well what I mean is like historical eara vs. pre-historical era.
Upvote
0
Ah. So what does this "microevolution" of which you speak comprise, anyway?
Again. What's the difference?
Upvote
0
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is at best a heuristic device. The same mechanisms would be involved in either one. To concede the one is thus to concede the other.
or can you tell me why there would need to be a different mechanism?
or can you tell me why there would need to be a different mechanism?
Upvote
0
Well microevolution occurs within the same "kind"; a cell. I don't see how you can use this to say a dog could have come from a rock.
Upvote
0
First, define "kind". And please tell me what prevents one "kind" of animal from evolving into something we would no longer consider of being the same "kind".
The second statement sounds a little too much like Kent Hovind. Please tell me you know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I tried, last month. I even created a whole thread for the subject. But no could explain to me the difference (the closest was something about "natural barriers"; but no one wanted to elaborate on that).
Upvote
0
Kind; like a species which includes all its variations. And i'm not saying that it can't happen. What I am sayig is that no one has ever observed it to happen, and thus has not been proven. So it should not be regarded as fact in textbooks when all it is is a theory.
Yes I do. I actually just saw one of Hovind's videos so that's where the "rock" analogy came from. I suppose I should now note that i'm not a hovind advocate. However, he does have some good points, though some are too extreme. but that discussion is for another thread. In any event, that barrier between abiogenesis and evolution sometimes conveniently gets thrown out the window when arguing against creation.
Upvote
0
The problem is that there is no actual difference between the kind of variations found between minor subspecie and those between Species or even genie. If evolution can produce the one, it can produce the other, and as you have conceded it HAS produced differences between subspecies. To infer that this is evidence for macroevolution is just the sort of probablistic reasoning that scientists do all the time. This 'shouldn't be taught as fact' thing is simply a Red Herring.
"In any event, that barrier between abiogenesis and evolution sometimes conveniently gets thrown out the window when arguing against creation."
Actually I think you are the one who just threw the distinction out the window, much less the barriar. The point is that even if evolutionary science does not currently explain where life itself came from, that does not mean that evolutionary theory is not an adequate means of explaining speciation.
"In any event, that barrier between abiogenesis and evolution sometimes conveniently gets thrown out the window when arguing against creation."
Actually I think you are the one who just threw the distinction out the window, much less the barriar. The point is that even if evolutionary science does not currently explain where life itself came from, that does not mean that evolutionary theory is not an adequate means of explaining speciation.
Upvote
0
"Variations"... can you be a wee bit more specific, please?
Gotcha. And the 18th century being regarded as fact? And France? And 18th century France? Y'know, I bet if we looked hard enough we'd find a LOT of stuff we take for granted in textbooks.
Yeah, I've seen all of Hovind's videos, so I kinda recognized the analogy.
And yes, sometimes barriers get conveniently thrown out the window. Sometimes they also get conveniently errected (such as these silly "micro" and "macro" terms, when in fact, there is absolutely no difference between them whatsoever; at least not any difference that has been explained to me).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
There is no difference between an elephant and a mouse? really.... well thanks for clearing that one up.
I would think the most obvious difference is expressed through appearence. There MUST be a difference if species look different. I don't care if my DNA is 99.99% like that of a banana. There's still a difference, and a very prominent one considering a banana is nothing like what I am (don't take this opportunity to say anything sarcastic).
Exactly.
No. I didn't bring ambiogenesis into my argument. I was only talking about evolution.
You know, in the end, all this bickering that people do about whether evolution is true or not is a waste of time and i'm guilty of it just like everyone else. We could all better use our time by loving others and spreading the word (or just loving others for non-believers) instead of trying to prove a point to someone who will never accept your point. Science is great, ideally speaking. But in reality, the people behind science sometimes have motives other than discovering truth, as many creationists are also guilty of.
Anyway, from now on, I am going to stick with what I can be most effective in. I appreciate the debate guys. Take care and God bless.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
