Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Sheeana]

Well, it's a very good source of protein!

[Baby-K]

I thouth you're vegetarian

[Lizra]

The nits? (picked and eaten?) well, what a great excuse for nitpicking! ....oh Gwaimir, got something for ya here!

The skulls discovered are fascinating! I wish more of South America was awash and exposed, I'm still wondering about what all went on down there. (Atlantis ) We're having our gravel driveway redug, and we have found several beautiful arrowheads. Our area was a Miami Indian reservation years ago, and finding these beautiful arrowheads on the high ground is so exciting! I can't look at and touch them enough!

[Earniel]

Arrowheads?

*starts muttering* It's just not fair, it's just not fair.. we've spent ages trying to dig a swimming pool and think we found anything older than 5 years? Nothing but sand and worms. You know how hard that is on a family of one archeologist, one amateur-archeologist and two people interested in it? It's just not fair, it's just not fair...

That was just me expressing my jealousy. I know this is of topic, but any chance on a picture of those arrowheads?

[GrayMouser]

I arrived too late for the earlier evolution/creation thread, so I'm willing to get into evidence. I think it bears on the original topic.

[Lizra]

Sorry Earniel! Do you have fossil rocks? We get fossilized shells on the limestone that is in the road and driveway gravel all the time. I guess it's Indiana limestone. I remember my inlaws house had a limestone bottom half. There was a part near the back door that had all sorts of sea shell fossils embedded in the limestone on the side of the house! It was cool! I'll try to remember an arrowhead pic when I get that digital camera! The area where I live had Miami Indians for many years. They still have a Pow-Wow dance every fall at the Festival of the Turning Leaves. Arrowheads are often, found especially when the farmer's were tilling regularly.

[Rían]

Just out of curiosity (I don't mean this in a sarcastic way) - what makes you think those arrowhead-shaped things you found are not just the product of random chance and natural processes like erosion?

[HOBBIT]

I'm a little confused on what you believe here rian:
You want evolution to be taught in schools (public shcools i'm talking about) and also creationism, right? You want them both in a science class or what? Where in a public school would creationism belong? Keep in mind that in most schools (public) there are not religion classes. You might say History/Social Studies but there are curriculums, where would it fit in? And how would it be taught legally with separation of church and state? It does deal heavily with religion because a god is the main thing of creation theory. And wherever you chose to teach creation in school, would you teach it as truth, represent all the creation stories of all the cultures in that school?

[Coney]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I'm a little confused on what you believe here rian:
You want evolution to be taught in schools (public shcools i'm talking about) and also creationism, right? You want them both in a science class or what? Where in a public school would creationism belong? Keep in mind that in most schools (public) there are not religion classes. You might say History/Social Studies but there are curriculums, where would it fit in? And how would it be taught legally with separation of church and state? It does deal heavily with religion because a god is the main thing of creation theory. And wherever you chose to teach creation in school, would you teach it as truth, represent all the creation stories of all the cultures in that school?

Sheesh! Well obviously both should be taught as theory as there is no positive proof (scientific or theological) of either.

*shrugs*..........isn't it obvious?

[HOBBIT]

no, its not obvious. are you saying that creation should be taught in a science class a scientific theory when it is not?

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Just out of curiosity (I don't mean this in a sarcastic way) - what makes you think those arrowhead-shaped things you found are not just the product of random chance and natural processes like erosion?

My eyes. They are beautifully chiped and chiseled arrowheads, with lovely curved bases for tying. They look like elves made them. They do not look like pointy rocks. I would think erosion would make for smoothness, not an arrow shape. As I mentioned, my farm was once part of the Miami Indians first reservation, there are native american artifacts all about the area. We have a musuem for all this type of stuff in the small burg where my son goes to school. Erosion looks different.

[Coney]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
no, its not obvious. are you saying that creation should be taught in a science class a scientific theory when it is not?

No HOBBIT theory and scientific theory are two very different things

EDIT: I love your demands for people to proove the existence of God in this thread...........I hope the Pope is reading *thumbs up*

[HOBBIT]

Yes, but both taught where coney?

[Coney]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Yes, but both taught where coney?

Well in the high school I attended......creation theory (christian and others) was taught in Religious Studies and Biology (or evolutionn that is known as scientific fact) was taught in specialised science lessons.......*shrugs* Evolustion theory (Darwinism) was taught in History class.

[HOBBIT]

In most states there is no "religious studies" class. There can't really be either unless it really has no religious preaching at all. So basically they would have to present all the creation stories as myths. I AGREE with you that both should be taught (only so one can make judgement with both sides of the story), but creation has no place in public schools here in the us. It is up to parents to teach that stuff if they want - its called relgion schools...

[Coney]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
In most states there is no "religious studies" class. There can't really be either unless it really has no religious preaching at all. So basically they would have to present all the creation stories as myths. I AGREE with you that both should be taught (only so one can make judgement with both sides of the story), but creation has no place in public schools here in the us. It is up to parents to teach that stuff if they want - its called relgion schools...

I agree with you there............religious idealologies are hard to teach (especially over the short period of time folks are in school)...........in the UK six different religions are taught as part of the curriculum in Religious studies (this is extended to eight if you choose to study religion after the age of 14) ............ we're lucky here, preaching/teaching christianity in schools was wiped from being common practice in schools over ten years ago (UK being muti-cultural and all)..........religion (faith) was left to the home and church(where it belongs IMO ).

[HOBBIT]

well its nice that we are in agreement

[Coney]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
well its nice that we are in agreement

Not that I can ever remember argueing with ya HOBBIT.........

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
(1)I'm a little confused on what you believe here rian:
You want evolution to be taught in schools (public shcools i'm talking about) and also creationism, right?
(2)You want them both in a science class or what?
(3)Where in a public school would creationism belong?
(4)Keep in mind that in most schools (public) there are not religion classes.
(5)You might say History/Social Studies but there are curriculums, where would it fit in?
(6)And how would it be taught legally with separation of church and state?
(7)It does deal heavily with religion because a god is the main thing of creation theory.
(8)And wherever you chose to teach creation in school, would you teach it as truth, represent all the creation stories of all the cultures in that school?

1 - yep.
2 - yep.
3 - science class.
4 - ok.
5 - science class.
6 - sep. of ch & st. means that a particular religion is not PROMOTED above ANOTHER one. I don't think it should be taught as tied to a particular religion; or it could be taught w/o tying it in, then at the end, summarize those religions that have a creationist story. Or don't summarize. But don't promote one religion above another.
7 - yup, see above.
8 - nope, teach it as a very valid scientific model, but not necessarily the truth. The students should be encouraged to impartially evaluate the evidence for and against each theory. And either review all creation stories or none.

I'm going to start with my first long post , but I wanted to quick answer your questions. Could we please hold debate on whether or not you think creationism is scientific for a bit, and let me present some scientific evidence.

[Rían]

I posted this yesterday:

So, I wanted to start by getting an agreed-upon wording of the question that I think both evolutionism and creationism are trying to answer. I would say it's basically the following: How did what we can observe around us arrive at its current state?

Is that ok, or would anyone like to offer another wording? I'd especially like to hear from the evolutionists.

and haven't heard back from anyone, so I'll just assume it's ok and continue on.

A couple of top-level observations:

The essence of real science is observation and experimentation, ne?
(with a thanks to Eruviel for that expression! I love it!)


Now, moving on:

from creationist Henry Morris, PhD, 1987, What is Creation Science? : As noted in the introduction, it is not possible to prove, in the experimental sense, either evolution or creation, since we can neither observe past history directly nor reproduce it in the laboratory. Nevertheless, we can compare and contrast the respective abilities of the evolution and creation models to explain - and even to predict - those scientific data which can be directly observed.

from evolutionist D. J. Futuyma, 1983, Science on Trial (an anti-creationist book ) :
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.

I'm going to propose that evolutionism is (basically) time and chance brought about what we see around us today, and creationism is (basically) plan and design brought about what we see around us today. Is this an acceptable basic working model?


A further refinement would be that:
In the evolution model, the entire universe is considered to have evolved by natural processes into its present state of high organization and complexity.
In the creation model, there is at least one period of direct creation in the beginning, during which the basic systems of nature were brought into existence in completed, functioning form right from the start.

(these defs were from the Morris book. I'm using them because I think they represent the two models well.)

Are there any adjustments that anyone would like to suggest? I'll wait 24 hrs for comments, then start presenting the evidence (which I've been assured beforehand, by the evolutionists on this thread, will be thoughtfully considered )