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 ]

[KramerAndKierkegaard]

TheAggressor777

KramerAndKierkegaard

TheAggressor777

Separation of church and state. 'Nuff said. No evolutionary theories in the classroom. That's all there is to it. You should have to apply for a class to learn about Darwinism, not be taught as curriculum material. Catholics despise Darwin and all he taught. Imagine the look on their faces when they hear their 4-year-old saying "Mommy, I learned that we evolved from apes today! Is that true?"

I am so very confused. The Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, so I have no idea what you are going on about !

And why no evolutionary theory in the classroom due to separation of church and state ? Are you implying evolution is a religious belief ?

It is not a religious belief, but it goes against other religious beliefs.

Your point being ? I have no idea what you are getting at with that statement.

[Denzyz]

TheAggressor777

KramerAndKierkegaard

TheAggressor777

Separation of church and state. 'Nuff said. No evolutionary theories in the classroom. That's all there is to it. You should have to apply for a class to learn about Darwinism, not be taught as curriculum material. Catholics despise Darwin and all he taught. Imagine the look on their faces when they hear their 4-year-old saying "Mommy, I learned that we evolved from apes today! Is that true?"

I am so very confused. The Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, so I have no idea what you are going on about !

And why no evolutionary theory in the classroom due to separation of church and state ? Are you implying evolution is a religious belief ?

It is not a religious belief, but it goes against other religious beliefs.

Uh...so? Religion has no place in public schools, especially when it comes to dictating the curriculum. If someone doesn't like that their kid isn't learning the 'God did it' explanation, then they can teach their child what they believed happened, and nto interefere with the other students actually learning.
Just because it goes against someones religious beliefs doesn't mean it should be pulled out of the curriculum.

[Redem]

TheAggressor777

Darwinism/evolution is not a religion, it is a theory. Atheism is a religion which, for the most part, supports Darwin's theory.

Depending on who you are, however, you're wrong about the Catholics agreeing with evolution. I was born and raised Catholic and when I told my family that I had learned about Darwin's theory, they threatened to disown me if I ever brought the subject up again. I recently became agnostic for that specific reason.

I was born and raised catholic, and went to catholic schools all my life. None of the priests who taught me had any problems with evolution.

These cover the issue.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html



While there is no conflict between evolution and atheism, nor are the two necessarily linked.

[Crazyjust4u]

redem

Crazyjust4u

I think the thoughts of Evolution as a whole have too many holes in their arguments,so before further teaching these ideas should be further reorganized, and more and more evidence is being found for intelligent design so I think both should be taught as ideas about world and life origins unless one can be fully proven or disproven.

You know that's a lie. You've had your "holes" torn apart in dozens of other threads already. Stop spreading lies.

Do I know you?

[Beyond_Oblivion]

Crazyjust4u

I think the thoughts of Evolution as a whole have too many holes in their arguments,

Care to name them? Newton's laws have huge, glaring holes going right through them, but they are still taught as fact.

Quote:

so before further teaching these ideas should be further reorganized, and more and more evidence is being found for intelligent design

What evidence supporting ID has been found? Everything presented by ID is down the lines of 'This couldn't have evolved so it must have been designed.' That is not evidence, that is taking the easy way out and being non-scientific.

Quote:

so I think both should be taught as ideas about world and life origins unless one can be fully proven or disproven.

So, direct observation of evolutionary processes does not count as sufficient proof? After all, the theory of evolution is meant to describe an objective, observable, undeniable fact of evolution.

[keimist]

I think the idea is stupid. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming and is the basis of an advanced biology education. And furthermore, it's not like people cannot believe in both creationism (For example: creating a basis and then evolution happening from there)and evolution. I personally don't, but that's me. I solely believe in evolution, so yeah.

[Gothkitti]

Naturally, the next step is to illegalize higher Math and English in high schools, since the modern variants of the subjects may present rules of Mathematics and English which conflict with the upbringing with the parents have had and even, often, the parents' own knowledge. After that, we can go after the history books, assuring that annoying contra-popular facts, such as the occurance of the Trail of Tears, are edited out in the favor of an educational system which is more friendly to the beliefs of parents.

/sarcasm.

Science is literally the opposite of faith. If you're too stupid to realize that then you shouldn't be making educational decisions for yourself, much less anybody else.

[Missy Wyvern]

If they teach the virtues and history of religions, then they should teach the theory of evolution as well. If you're not going to teach evolution, then Creationism (of any religion) should not be taught, either.

Hell, it's not like the schools are forcing the children to believe in evolution. They're just teaching an important theory in biology.

[Atomic Sky]

She's a killer queen.

Evolution is fact, and these pople cannot accept that it is.

Gunpowder, gelatine.

[Missy Wyvern]

Crazyjust4u

I think the thoughts of Evolution as a whole have too many holes in their arguments

The same could be said about many things, including the Bible. I personally think that evolution is more or less more believable than some of the fairytales told in that old book, but let's not get into that.

Quote:

so before further teaching these ideas should be further reorganized, and more and more evidence is being found for intelligent design so I think both should be taught as ideas about world and life origins unless one can be fully proven or disproven.

Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven yet. So, yes, it's still pretty much an idea. And no one can possibly prove that intelligent design is the absolute truth. So, by your standards, intelligent design should not be taught until it is more organized, either. They are already both simply ideas.

And what is this new evidence that intelligent design is real?

[Missy Wyvern]

Atomic Sky

She's a killer queen.

Evolution is fact, and these pople cannot accept that it is.

Gunpowder, gelatine.

It has not been proven. It's still theory.

[Quami719]

I think it depends who's teaching it. For example Richard Dawkins, is a onesided, egotistical, close minded extremeist. You have to teach that though evolution is a fact, it dosn't explain the human concousness.

Counciousness (*sorry for my poor spelling) isn't evolutionary, it is an individual trait, and cannot be distorted by generalizing all human characteristics as it on many occasions is.

Understand?

[Miekka]

The word "theory" can be very misleading. In common usage, we say "theory" when mean an idea. In science, a theory is not just an "idea." In order to be termed a "scientific theory," there has to be substantial proof behind it.

Evolution is termed a theory rather than a law (like Newton's Laws of Physics) because it is not a simple principle (like the First or Second laws of physics) but a complex set that explains a phenomenon seen in nature.

No scientific theory can EVER be proven -- that is the beauty of science: by definition, a scientific theory must present a hypothesis that can be researched and could potentially be falsified. (just as the theory of gravity could potentially be proven false if evidence could be found against it)

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. Since it is not a scientific theory, it has no place in a science course. If parents or religious institutions decide to teach it as a piece of their religious instruction, that is their choice. However, a public school, as a government instrument, should not legally be able to teach religious ideology.

Intelligent Design has no proof. And the debates you see about whether evolution is true or not, are not about the essence of the theory -- they are about how it is carried out. Try to understand the difference.

[Asher Kingsley]

Missy Wyvern

Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven yet. So, yes, it's still pretty much an idea. And no one can possibly prove that intelligent design is the absolute truth. So, by your standards, intelligent design should not be taught until it is more organized, either. They are already both simply ideas.

And what is this new evidence that intelligent design is real?

Not contradicting you in any way, just mentioning that theory is just about the highest level of certainty things get in science. Evolution is 'theory' the way that gravity is a 'theory' xd

(edit: oh god, totally, completely beaten by 1 post >_> XD)


.. in any case, and what the religious often forget to consider, is even if evolution was disproved tomorrow, that doesn't mean that somehow religion wins.. there is no binary opposition here, as much as media and popular belief would like to believe it .. if evolution is proved false, then scientists will diligently continue to study the world until they figure out a more correct picture of the world *shrug*

[Quami719]

Miekka

The word "theory" can be very misleading. In common usage, we say "theory" when mean an idea. In science, a theory is not just an "idea." In order to be termed a "scientific theory," there has to be substantial proof behind it.

Evolution is termed a theory rather than a law (like Newton's Laws of Physics) because it is not a simple principle (like the First or Second laws of physics) but a complex set that explains a phenomenon seen in nature.

No scientific theory can EVER be proven -- that is the beauty of science: by definition, a scientific theory must present a hypothesis that can be researched and could potentially be falsified. (just as the theory of gravity could potentially be proven false if evidence could be found against it)

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. Since it is not a scientific theory, it has no place in a science course. If parents or religious institutions decide to teach it as a piece of their religious instruction, that is their choice. However, a public school, as a government instrument, should not legally be able to teach religious ideology.

Intelligent Design has no proof. And the debates you see about whether evolution is true or not, are not about the essence of the theory -- the are about how it is carried out. Try to understand the difference.

Gravity according to Newton was proven false by Einstein, and subsequently Einstein was proven wrong by Stephen Hawking, we teach Newton's Laws of Gravity in schools still because it applys here on earth, and it's much more simple than the other theorys. Besides that fact, anyone desprate enough to argue the semantics of the word "theory" won't listen to your side of any debate. The fact is that Evolution is a 99% scientifically accepted idea, and it checks out to even a layman such as me.

I think the bigger question here is, dose evolustionist theory truely contradict a god theory, which it dosn't. It perhaps reveals flaws in human interpritation of an unfathomable being, and many find that desterbing, but untill human society as a collective (or at least here in america) decides that all things created by human are not unphallicable; people will demand creatonism taught. We must ask ourselves, as enlightened people, can we accept the flaws in others and have faith that they're children will see the light?

Can you anwser that?