Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Fred Baggins]

I'm back for two seconds. Just think about the people who don't belive in evolution. point in fact, they don't want to listen to evolution.

[Aeryn]

I don't want to listen to evolution, it's a joke.
That is what the poem was about.

[cassiopeia]

Whew, so many posts! The difference between science and religion is that I'm (being a scientist) ready to change my opinion when given new evidence. As someone said, the bible isn't going to be changed soon, so I don't think that creationists are going to change thier minds. The only way I could beleive in creationism is if God 'tricked' us by putting all the fossils in the ground and making our DNA similar. But I prefer to go for the simpler option of evolution.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but evolution is a theory. It can never be made into a scientific law because it cannot be proven mathematically. Gravity, on the other hand, can (and several things pertaining to the 'law' of gravity are slightly flawed. Two objects don't really fall at a constant rate...maybe I'll explain later).

I have done university science, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. A theory is something which is experimentally validated, like Einsteins theory of relativity. People get confused about theorys and hypotheses. I agree that you can't prove evolution mathematically like Einsteins laws. As IP said, things fall at a constant acceleration, the only reason a feather and rock fall at different speeds on Earth is because of air resistance (ever see that experiment by an astronaut on the moon?)

I do have some trouble understanding how all the complex life around us came to be from inert molecules, but I think that it can be explained scientifically, just like I find it hard to comprehend that light is a wave and a particle. Creationists say that God made us in his own image, what if there are extra-terrestrials who don't look anything like us?

[Ms. Undomial]

I agree totally with Aeryn. evolution is a joke.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Ms. Undomial
I agree totally with Aeryn. evolution is a joke.

Why? Is is because you dislike the idea of people evolving from animals, so we arn't that special? Or you don't understand the science of it? Or you believe every word of the bible? The problem I have is that I think people should question everything and make up their own minds based on the evidence presented, not just because it says so in a book/TV/movie/magazine.

[Lizra]

Ms Umdomnial, What happens when you die? Not much! (ha ha) Your body rots. Your "soul" was nothing more than energy supported by your functioning body parts. When your heart stops beating, your brain gets no oxygen, everything stops functioning, and your so called "soul" goes pffft. There is some energy in the organic components that make up your body, and these will go back to the soil, (or wherever) waiting to nourish something else.

Evolution is not a religion.... who worships it? Is astronomy a religion too? How about the religion of aerodynamics? You sound a little silly, take a deep breath and stop throwing words around. A debate is no reason to get so crazed!

I suppose I won't go into what I think of the "creation" story. No need to rain on my virtual friends parades. Peace.

Emphlyx...What is the theory of interchangable parts?

[Aeryn]

No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.
If we evolved from whatever you 'scientics' are saying now-a-days why aren't those creatures evolving today?
You base alot of things off of rock, a rocks age is based on years, thats how you know the earth is so old. Tell me WHAT METHODS do you take to know what a million year old rock looks like?

[Lizra]

Lots of thinking people believe it. What a dumb thing to say! I think and I believe it. Ahem...

I've never heard of this theory of "devolving", or rolling back. Exactly what causes this to happen? Is this what Devo were talking about? "All things that go forward must go backward" Good one!

All creatures are evolving. You don't see it because you are just a tiny squeak of a second on the evolutionary time line. Honestly, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. The theory of evolution is based on a lot more than "rock" The statements you are making underscore the reason why it should be taught in school. After learning about it, and understanding it, if you choose to reject it because it clashes with your faith, that is your decision. No need to make a bunch of false, irrational statements about a well documented scientific theory. Don't be an ostrich!

[webwizard333]

No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.

No, if you understood evolution, you'd understand that de-evolution is not possible. Mutations can occur that can be considered throw-backs to an early stage, but they do not bring about any advantage in breeding and passing the genes on, thus de-evolution would not occur.

[Aeryn]

Mmmmhmm....I'm not in public school...and im not religious and i dont believe in evolution....FYI
okay, so I may not quite get where all these ...er 'facts' have sprung up from...but oh Yoda...teach my ...bonhomme mind...

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I have done university science, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. A theory is something which is experimentally validated, like Einsteins theory of relativity. People get confused about theorys and hypotheses. I agree that you can't prove evolution mathematically like Einsteins laws.

I am currently taking a college level biology class, and the difference between theories and hypotheses was cleared up for me a long time ago. I was one of two people in my class that knew the difference at the beginning of the year (why, I don't know). I can't claim having finished the class, but we have already done our unit on evolution.

When I asked my teacher why evolution wasn't a law, he told me because it cannot be proven mathematically. It is the most widely accepted among scientists because it has the most proof to back it up.

As IP said, things fall at a constant acceleration, the only reason a feather and rock fall at different speeds on Earth is because of air resistance (ever see that experiment by an astronaut on the moon?)

Air resistance isn't the only intereference. When Newton and other phsysists (sp?) were inventing calculus and came up with the equation for the 'two objects falling at a constant rate', they did not include the wieght of all things on the earth as well as the earth, because it was considered 'too insignificant'.

The Bible may have small alterations made with it with each new translation. Though my source comes from a fictional verse, supposedly the Hebrew word for "camel" is the same as for "coarse thread", only with a different pitch. "It is easier to pull a camel trhough the eye of a needle than get a rich man to heaven..." or would that be coarse thread?

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by webwizard333
No, if you understood evolution, you'd understand that de-evolution is not possible. Mutations can occur that can be considered throw-backs to an early stage, but they do not bring about any advantage in breeding and passing the genes on, thus de-evolution would not occur.

Not true, de-evolution can occur. There is a disorder called Huntington's (I think...), I believe that is a dominant trait, and it eventually kills the person who has it. Makes you think that they would die before the could reproduce, correct? Wrong. The symptoms of the disease usually don't show up until the vicitim is in his or her thirities, and often tiems they have had children by then, possibly pasisng along their dominant yet fatal gene.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Aeryn
No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.
If we evolved from whatever you 'scientics' are saying now-a-days why aren't those creatures evolving today?
You base alot of things off of rock, a rocks age is based on years, thats how you know the earth is so old. Tell me WHAT METHODS do you take to know what a million year old rock looks like?

Guess what, all creatures - even humans - are evolving at this moment. It's just that it happens over millions of years and how long have you been here? A very small fraction of that. We date rocks by carbon dating. I won't go into the exact details, but if we know how much carbon has been lost from the rock, we can use some simple equations to work out the age of the rock. Since the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, this is plenty of time for evolution. I think we got the age of the Earth from moon rocks bought back by the Apollo missions. You say people evolved from animals - why is that so hard to believe? Why are we so different from other animals? Actually no THINKING person would believe something just because it says so in a book.

[Lief Erikson]

Perhaps not, but if we believed what we believed simply on the basis of what it says in a book, we'd be a sorry lot indeed. Christianity is an experiential religion. The reason that people sometimes stop believing, like those people that are posting on this thread who have a Catholic background, but never got the faith because it looked like a lot of garbage, is because they didn't come to know God in the first place. There was no basis for belief, and I can completely understand all of the reasons they have for leaving. But God spoke to Elijah, and Moses, and Paul, etc. Those aren't things of the past, they are experiences that all Christians can have. The Bible isn't just a book.

I also disagree with carbon dating, for the reasons I stated in an earlier post . . . I don't know if you've seen it. Archaeological dating and astronomical dating are two types of dating which are counted to be much more accurate than radio carbon dating. Radio carbon dating is known to be less and less accurate the farther back in time you use it. But it is the only dating method they have for things that date back to before humanity, so that's what they use. The totally illogical thing is that even though this inaccuracy is known, they use it mostly for the farthest points of time in history. It's because it's the only dating method that they have for things back then, but that doesn't make it correct.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
Not true, de-evolution can occur. There is a disorder called Huntington's (I think...), I believe that is a dominant trait, and it eventually kills the person who has it. Makes you think that they would die before the could reproduce, correct? Wrong. The symptoms of the disease usually don't show up until the vicitim is in his or her thirities, and often tiems they have had children by then, possibly pasisng along their dominant yet fatal gene.

I presume that you are reffering to Huntingtons Corea Starr Polish?..If so, then you are very much incorrect. Huntingtons Corea is by no means a de-evolution...this genetic disease does frequently 'skip' a generation, so ensuring that the families DNA and and subsequentialy 'evolution' continues. Also tests for Huntingtons Corea are viable, therefore 100% reliable, from the age 18+.

[Starr Polish]

I got the info from my AP bio book, which I will admit is a bit dated (a first year teacher in our school had it for her freshmen year in college).

[Coney]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
I got the info from my AP bio book, which I will admit is a bit dated (a first year teacher in our school had it for her freshmen year in college).

No problem ............ One of my friends wife and his brother-in law suffered from Huntingtons Corea (she had to go through a historectomy to prevent the disease from killing her, he was totally clear of the disease).......hope your book is up to date (sorry, that was not meant to sound quiet so sarcastic).

[Starr Polish]

It didn't come off as sarcastic, so don't worry. It's becoming harder and harder to offend me...I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not .

(P.S. Tir Nan Og, eh? Not sure if I would want to live there )

[Aeryn]

Lief, hmmm, wonder who you're talking about
Anyway...

[Willow Oran]

Personally I believe in creation more than evolution. I have considered both and I feel that neither are one hundred percent believable but for me creationism is what I started out believing and I find that no matter how much I try to change my beliefs to more scientific theories I cannot, my mind always reverts back to catholasism and creationism in the end. This is because for me the very fact that humans have the intelligence to figure out things like evolution and other scientific theories proves the exsistence of interference on the part of a divine being. In otherwards, evolutionism and creationism only make sense when they are combined. Besides that it makes it far more interesting.
I think it's time we considered some of the good and bad points of both as opposed to arguing which one is true. Both the faith and the theory should be treated with caution as they can both be corrupted in similar ways to cause racism, prejudice, and bloody wars that kill people based solely on their physical features/beliefs depending on which is causing the war. People in history have interpeted evolution to mean survival of the fittest and have used that as an excuse to discriminate against anyone that they consider to be unfit. This is not much different from the way people discriminate against others based on religion. Some people have discriminated against people based on both saying that belief in a certain religion is akin to a genetic default. I think that evolution should be taught in schools, partly because I found genetics at least to be very interesting and it's useful for when I making up a fictional world to write about. As for religion, religion gets taught whether it shouldn't or should. It's so involved in human history that the basics of each religion end up gettning covered in order for understanding of historical events that tie in with those religions. There are parts of each that I disagree with but there are also parts of both that I agree very much. They should both be taught in schools in such a way that they balance eachother out and allow students to make educated choices about their own beliefs.