Teaching of Evolution (your thoughts?)

Do you agree evolution should be taught?

yes	67.3%	[ 1018 ]
no	13.2%	[ 199 ]
I'm not sure.. but I want gold :3	19.5%	[ 295 ]
Total Votes:			[ 1512 ]

[Eviko]

evolution is pretty much proved.

creationist is metaphoric, even priests agree.

[Lykus]

[.Volatile.]

Actually, I think you do indeed have a point. Evolution is based on scientific fact. But...in all reality...it is still a theory.

Stop. Now. Scientific theory is not the same as my "theory" that, because I hear noises at night, my house is haunted. Scientific theory is essentially fact. It is not more or less fallible than scientific law. Learn the difference between scientific theory and layman theory.

If we dismissed scientific theory because "it's just a theory" then we would not teach our children about cells. Cell theory is "just a theory." We would not teach our children about volcanoes, earthquakes, mountains, valleys, etc. because plate tectonics is "just a theory."

Any school that cuts evolution out of the curriculum because they think it is "wrong" is undeniably harming its students. I only say that private schools can do what they like in this regard because they are little more than expensive day care centers, anyway. Sure, you can offer them two paths, but I would not consider it generous of a person to offer me a path that went over paved, smooth concrete and another path that crossed lava and acid pits, when everyone else offers me the concrete one and for free.

[BlackShadow03]

Jaaten Syric

[.Volatile.]

Actually, I think you do indeed have a point. Evolution is based on scientific fact. But...in all reality...it is still a theory.

Stop. Say nothing more on this subject until you learn what a theory is in a scientific context.

Hint: Scientific theory =/= 'common' theory. Scientific theory = Layman's fact.

Quote:

And every belief in the minds of many are indeed theories, though some may not be very well supported...

Not in a scientific context they're not. Please stop equivocating.

In addition to Jaaten's link, update yourself on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. I can just see you claiming that one is above the other.

EDIT: (Crap! You weren't supposed to use the same web page, Syric! ....Oh, well....What do they say about great minds? ninja )

[BlackShadow03]

Jaaten Syric

Er, Shadow? You posted the same link as me. sweatdrop

SHH! I'm having a *palmface* moment!

[Bakukuya]

I beleive we should teach both.....

[Jaaten Syric]

hey dare

I beleive we should teach both.....

And your rationale? (assumes this to be 'Taught in the same class')

[Lykus]

hey dare

I beleive we should teach both.....

I beleive [sic] the moon is pink.

[BryanTehGuy]

Creationism? You mean the belief that we're all inbred? God created Adam and Eve in his own image right? Then wouldn't Adam and Eve be God's children just like Jesus? That would make us all descendants of God, wouldn't it? Then why is Jesus so special? Assuming that Adam and Eve were both Caucasian, then where did people of different color come from? Did God make them too? How come it's not in the bible.

No thanks. I can poke way too many holes in religion without even trying. Something so obviously flawed has no place in a classroom. If anything it should be taught as MYTH, just like Greek and Roman faiths. I find it laughable that anyone can actually seriously believe in such filth.

Evolution on the other hand... it makes sense if you actually think about it instead of brushing it aside as something that clashes with what your minister says. Survival of the fittest. The strong survive, and those traits get passed on, and thus evolution occurs. It's really not that complicated, and makes a whole lot more sense then, "God did it."

Something else you should think about:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[Jaaten Syric]

BryanTehGuy

Something else you should think about:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Might I ask what relevance the Epicurian argument has in a thread on evolution?

[BryanTehGuy]

Jaaten Syric

BryanTehGuy

Something else you should think about:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Might I ask what relevance the Epicurian argument has in a thread on evolution?

It's relevant to science vs religion, which is what evolution vs creationism is. Props to you for recognizing the source.

[BlackShadow03]

BryanTehGuy

Jaaten Syric

BryanTehGuy

Something else you should think about:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Might I ask what relevance the Epicurian argument has in a thread on evolution?

It's relevant to science vs religion, which is what evolution vs creationism is. Props to you for recognizing the source.

Science is not against religion. They work on completely different levels.

[Jaaten Syric]

BryanTehGuy

It's relevant to science vs religion,

Not really. It is a philosophical proof relating to deities, making it irrelevant to science, and not necessarilly relevant to religion.

Quote:

which is what evolution vs creationism is.

No evolution vs. creationism is science vs. fanaticism. Most world religions have no beef with the theory, and the two ideas are not by any means irreconcilable. It looks to me like you wanted to take a pot-shot at theism and little else from this angle.

[AzureFire]

Evolution should be taught. The only reason it isn't is because conservative Christians don't like the thought that their literal translation of a book written by a bunch of Jewish rabbis in hiding three thousand years ago could possibly be wrong. They want to "protect the children" from outside views, so they go and make sure that their children are perfectly safe from the truth, the exact thing that the precious Bible tells them to seek in the first place.

[BryanTehGuy]

BlackShadow03

Science is not against religion. They work on completely different levels.

In most aspects, yes. Science is about discovering truth, is it not? When you have a group of people who would like a portion of that truth not taught, they are opposed. Maybe my use of the blanket statement "religion" is what you have a problem with here?

Jaaten Syric

BryanTehGuy

It's relevant to science vs religion,

Not really. It is a philosophical proof relating to deities, making it irrelevant to science, and not necessarilly relevant to religion.

The religion in question is based around a deity, is it not? Therefore, a philosophical proof relating to deities can easily be associated here. Irrelevant to science alone, perhaps, but not in this context.

Jaaten Syric

BryanTehGuy

which is what evolution vs creationism is.

No evolution vs. creationism is science vs. fanaticism. Most world religions have no beef with the theory, and the two ideas are not by any means irreconcilable. It looks to me like you wanted to take a pot-shot at theism and little else from this angle.

I wasn't aware we were talking about most world religions. As I said to BlackShadow, perhaps my use of the blanket term "religion" is what you have a problem with? Irreconcilable? I don't believe anyone said that either. Just looking at the "intelligent design" is proof enough that religion is coming around, albeit they tried to twist it into another "god did it" thing. Call it a pot-shot if you must, but the truth is never embarrassed by honest enquiry.