Why is evolution taught in our schools?

[Sparagmos]

Atomic Theory, Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravitation are all repeatable in a laboratory.

Try repeating evolution.

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Sparagmos]

IF you cannot repeat it, then you do not "know" it.

You believe it based on FAITH.

That’s silly. First of all, evolution has been observed in labs. Secondly, evolution involves history, Do you deny the French Revolution because it can’t be replicated?

 

[AV1611VET]

They have no need to cover up or pretend to know what they do not.

Then why do they deny evolution is one stage of cosmic evolution?

 

[Tanj]

Then why do they deny evolution is one stage of cosmic evolution?

For the same reason you deny the bible is one stage of the Marvel Universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the same reason you deny the bible is one stage of the Marvel Universe.

That's cute.

Did you happen to see the picture I posted?

 

[Tanj]

That's cute.

Did you happen to see the picture I posted?

Oops, my bad!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atomic Theory, Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravitation are all repeatable in a laboratory.

Try repeating evolution.

That is not the way that science is done. It is the tests that have to be repeatable. Those not involved in the sciences often do not understand this. It is not the results that must be repeatable. And there are many ways that experiments are repeated in evolution. The same species of fossils can be found again and again. If found in "wrong" layers they could refute the theory. That does not tend to happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why do they deny evolution is one stage of cosmic evolution?

That is called an equivocation fallacy. Put it this way, if an atheist applied that sort of fallacy to the Christian God and say the God of the Hindus, and some are monotheistic, and tried to claim they were one and the same here they would probably get moderated. It is both incorrect and disrespectful.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your next move, accusations of ignorance, is also right out of your well-worn play book. Beyond that, I can't find a thing you've contributed that I've been able to learn from.

I don't accuse people of ignorance. I identify ignorance in myself and others. Ignorance, of itself, is not a "bad" thing.

We are all ignorant of far more than we are knowledgeable of. If we acquire appropriate knowledge for our culture, our society, our work, our family life then those areas of which we remain ignorant are typically not a problem.

What is a problem is when anyone engages in a topic of which they are largely ignorant, but that ignorance is disregarded or denied. Initially this leads to misunderstanding or misapplication of the topic. If the person is open to understanding that they are ignorant of the topic area then the issue is easily solved. If they refuse to recognise it and insist upon avoiding the established facts then they are guilty of wilfull ignorance. That leads to the kind of fruitless discussion you and I are engaged in.

I truly regret that you have chosen not to honour the forum name you chose, for I suspect it was chosen with sincere intent. Somewhere along the way, unfortunately, you strayed from the path and the inquiring mind became closed.

The reason you have learned nothing from me is because of that closed mind and the prejudices you carry with you. To quote The Donald, sad.

 

[Dave-W]

That’s silly. First of all, evolution has been observed in labs.

Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.

We have never observed one species turn into another species.

Secondly, evolution involves history, Do you deny the French Revolution because it can’t be replicated?

That Revolution was observed and recorded. But since it was not observed under controlled conditions, the specifics cannot be proved.

 

[Dave-W]

That is not the way that science is done. It is the tests that have to be repeatable. Those not involved in the sciences often do not understand this. It is not the results that must be repeatable.

I am an engineer. Results need to be repeatable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.

We have never observed one species turn into another species.

That Revolution was observed and recorded. But since it was not observed under controlled conditions, the specifics cannot be proved.

Actually we have observed many examples of speciation. You will find example after example in various threads here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am an engineer. Results need to be repeatable.

All that tells us is that you do not understand the scientific method. Here is a simplified flow chart of it, tell me where it says that results need to be repeatable:

As you can see the experiment just repeatedly confirm the hypothesis. It does not require repeatable results.

 

[Dave-W]

As you can see the experiment just repeatedly confirm the hypothesis. It does not require repeatable results.

If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.

 

[DogmaHunter]

isnt it a fact that motors need design?

That is true if by "motor" you mean things like what is found under the hood of a volkswagen.

if you mean a "motor" like in some biological thing, then it's just an equivocation fallacy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

You mean: we can detect human activity.

 

[inquiring mind]

What is a problem is when anyone engages in a topic of which they are largely ignorant, but that ignorance is disregarded or denied. Initially this leads to misunderstanding or misapplication of the topic. If the person is open to understanding that they are ignorant of the topic area then the issue is easily solved. If they refuse to recognise it and insist upon avoiding the established facts then they are guilty of wilfull ignorance. That leads to the kind of fruitless discussion you and I are engaged in.

Insisting repeatedly that macro evolution is a fact, without evidence that is void of conjecture and speculation, doesn’t explain or make it so. My inability to see, and in particular to understand, ‘why’ you would reason the way you do in such a case, does not necessarily make me the ignorant one.

The reason you have learned nothing from me is because of that closed mind and the prejudices you carry with you.

Oh boy... I don't think I'll even go there.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.

You're talking about engineering.

 

[Dave-W]

You're talking about engineering.

Of course. I am trained as a design engineer. And God is the ultimate engineer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.

That would be because you are doing engineering, not science.