Should evolution be taught in schools?

[afro-elf]

Basically, Lief you accept things on Faith that I need evidence for.

If only all differences in the world could be so simple as our discussion.

[Arathorn]

This discussion is starting to remind me about which side of the egg to crack in Gulliver's Travels to Lilliput(sp?)

I agree with you on that last comment, A-E.

[Rûdhaglarien]

I'm going to be simple and answer the question stated at the beginning of this thread. Yes.

When I last went to CCD... in the... 2nd grade(?), I asked my teacher if we could discuss the difference between the theory of evolution and creation. Her answer was a resounding, "no". She then proceeded to call all scientists (and myself) heretics... yadda, yadda, yadda.... Needless to say, I finished that year and didn't return.

In any case, I believe that both sides of this should be covered. My CCD teacher was very closed minded and that's not good for her or her students. People shouldn't only be taught about creation... nor should they only be familiar with the THEORY of evolution. (Yes, it is a theory.) In order to decide what you yourself believe in, you need to familiarize yourself with both aspects of the argument.

I don't think that really made any sense, but, hey, I'm in a first period study hall, here, what do you want?

[Lief Erikson]

Yes, Afro elf, I am not trying to find evidence for spiritual things, nor do I wish to. But my faith is based on more than just what it says in the Bible, as anyone else's will become if they truly do seek God and he answers. He can tell whether each person seeking him is really serious in their quest, and if they are, he will take the time to reveal himself to that person. If, however, they only seek him for a day or two, or a week, he knows they weren't truly interested anyway. I had to seek for months, although seeking him of course wasn't everything I was doing. It for me was as simple as praying that if he existed, he'd talk to me, and praying that every night.

I now know that he isn't the sort of God that simply starts a universe and then watches everything play out. You might simply say that because there isn't enough evidence to support such a claim (Which there doesn't have to be anyway), it's not worth even looking into. You could discredit the millions of Christians who have and can talk to God, live by him and who can see daily direct evidence of his existence. My own testimony is included in theirs. But if you do, you'll be making the worst mistake you can make.


I'm personally not going to really say what my opinion is on whether or not evolution should be taught in school, because I'm simply not sure. I think that it should be available to everyone who wants to learn about it, and that people of other faiths should also learn about it, at least simply to be aware of what they're saying and to be able to make opinions for themselves. However, I don't think that people should necessarily be coerced into learning about a science that they don't want to know anything about. Such people are probably making a mistake, and limiting themselves as to what kind of a career is available to them, but it should at least be their choice.

I think that there should also be a religious course it is possible to take in schools, but likewise not mandatory. Wouldn't it be easier if people everywhere wanted to increase their own knowledge?

[Lizra]

It seems to me LE, that you wanted "God" and you wouldn't be happy till you found him, so you did. Good for you, It's all just a bunch of fairy tales to me though, all of them! (religions) Religions were created to explain things that people didn't understand. (IMO) As we learn more and more about how the world works, there seems to be less "need" for religion. Things change! I didn't like algebra, I wish they hadn't coerced me into studing something I didn't want to learn about and don't seem to use. Same with spanish. (I'm being sarcastic here)

[Lief Erikson]

I believe, Lizra, that you're right that the religions were created to give someone the truth about something they didn't understand. But the Bible explains things on the spiritual level, less then on the physical level. God wanted people to walk with him, so he helped them to do so by revealing to them what was pertinant to such a walk. The journey of the soul, and his truth. He is concerned with souls, not his creatures' knowledge of the universe that he created. That knowledge isn't vital to where people go when they die, or the life that they lead upon earth. We can discover more and more things about the universe he created, and he's fine with that. As a matter of a fact, the more that is revealed to people about this wondrous spectacle of creation, the more he probably is pleased. Yet that is not really what is important to God, and what is really important to him is bringing cleansed souls to heaven.

I think that the interpretation that was put upon the creation story, and which has been believed for so long, could possibly be in error. I believe that creation, as the Bible says it did, did happen in the described way. But that doesn't necessarily follow that it happens in the way and the time frame that is classically taught, and evolution could have been involved. Evolution doesn't have to be contradictory to Creation, it can simply be that we are discovering, and I emphasize that it is still only be discovered, there is still a lot more to learn, it could be that we are discovering the means by which he did create. But if God is perfect, then discovering this means, though wonderful and beautiful to see, is less than the most important thing, which is you all.

[Lief Erikson]

I apologize if I'm killing the discussion by bringing it more and more into the Christianity aspect. If someone wants to return to the main subject, should evolution be allowed in schools, they're more than welcome. We've discussed the Christianity side quite a lot, and we likely will more as well, but it might be a good idea to draw the debate back into focus.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Rûdhaglarien
... nor should they only be familiar with the THEORY of evolution. (Yes, it is a theory.)

the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries[list=1][*]A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[*]The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.[*]A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.[/list=1]

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Coney
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+.

I have my AP Bio book with me, and this is what it was to say on it (It is simply called Huntington's Disease in teh book)

Huntington's disease is a hereditary condition caused by a dominant allele that causes progressive deterioration of brain cells. It is the disorder that killed folk singer and songwriter Woody Gutrie. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 individuals develops the disorder. Becqause Huntington's disease is a dominant condition, every individual that carries an allele expresses it. You might wonder why in this case the genetic disorder doesn't die out. THe answer is that symptoms of Huntington's disease do not usually develop until the individuals are more than 30 years old, by which time most of them have already had children. For this reason, the allele is transmitted before the lethal condition develops.

It was my teacher that told me about de-evolution, I can't remember if it's actually in the book. Yeah, the book is a bit dated though...1989.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Thank you, BoP, I think the statement above correctly explains what a theory means in this context.

When I was at school we had an option of attending Bible class. I did because I didn't know any better. As I said, I think evolution should be taught at schools and creation should be taught in Bible class. It is no different than any other theory (theory as what BoP said) of science. You don't see people getting worked up about how Einsteins laws say we can't go faster than the speed of light or that light can be a particle and a wave.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries[list=1][*]A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[*]The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.[*]A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.[/list=1]

I popped back in here to bring up another thought to consider, but since I saw this, let me address it first.

EXACTLY!!!!! I totally agree!!!!! Now let me show you how it works.

Here is a fact before me - a thing, existing in the present, that scientists have given the name "fossil". Let me examine it - how very interesting it is! Now, it looks remarkably like this thing that I have here, called a bone, that a reliable person has told me came from the jaw of a dog. I think it is reasonable to think that this fossil is an old jawbone of a dog, possibly very old indeed (or actually, not the bone itself, but you guys know that .

Now let me make an educated guess as to its age. I know that this element has always been observed to act in this certain way (thought that is no guarantee that it WILL continue to do so! but it is certainly a VERY reasonable assumption) so I think I will use this observable fact as an aide to make an educated guess as to its age. It will be an extrapolation, since I haven't actually observed it acting this way for thousands of years, but again, it is a reasonable thing. (but we all know how dangerous an extrapolation is, vs. the much less dangerous interpolation, which however is also not guaranteed to be accurate). OK, based on the observable facts, and using very reasonable assumptions, I will postulate the theory that this is the jawbone of a dog that is "x" years old.

See the difference? The theory is NOT the observable fact itself, it is only a reasonable (hopefully all the scientists involved in my scenario have been intelligent AND honest) thought as to what may have happened to the observable fact that is in the present.

[Rían]

And the thought I wanted to present : can anyone prove to me, scientifically, that (1) Darwin existed, or that (2) JRRT wrote LoTR?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
See the difference? The theory is NOT the observable fact itself, it is only a reasonable (hopefully all the scientists involved in my scenario have been intelligent AND honest) thought as to what may have happened to the observable fact that is in the present.

We are agreed then. Because I'm certainly not going to state otherwise. However, the key part of a theory is that it has been repeatedly tested to be true or false.

Now let me just work on getting some dna samples from Darwin's grave....

[Rían]

I'm glad we agree

Actually, I chose Darwin on purpose, because DNA samples would be available (I was originally going to choose Aristotle (sp?) or someone farther back). Now how would his DNA prove that he lived? And can you prove scientifically that JRRT wrote LoTR?

[Rían]

Well, to save time, I'll just answer myself - what I wanted to show is that there are beliefs, held by many intelligent people, that are entirely reasonable to hold, based on the written accounts of reliable witnesses that were there, and that cannot be proven using the scientific method. Would you agree? After all, maybe JRR's wife Edith really penned LoTR and just was very nice and wanted to give her husband all the credit!

[Lizra]

What are you working at Rian? Yes it is very plausible that JRRT authored a book with his name on it. But many of the things in the bible are not so "easy to believe", they are downright "fantastical" miracles that no remotely modern people have ever seen, or have ever been able to recreate. That people author books is believable. That an invisble being in the sky created the entire universe in six days isn't so easy to swallow. This is too big of a "stretch" to fly in my book. I think everyone knows what we mean here by theory. One, evolution, has been bolstered by repeated scientific experimentation and research, so much so that is accepted by most people. The other, religion, has never been proven , just passed down from generation to generation as a way of explaning what was once unexplainable and also as a way of controlling others and maintaining power.

[Rían]

And looking back at my other post, I see that I really didn't express myself well. All I wanted to do is say that just because a theory references certain observable facts, doesn't mean that it, itself, is a fact. After all, there can be bad theories formed from good facts.

*and I see a smile on your face here - you are going to say that the theory of creation is a bad theory - and you know what, that doesn't even matter to me - my goal has been to disprove the popular notion that the theory of evolution itself is a fact, instead of a theory formulated and held by many sincere and intelligent scientists from the observation of facts. To me, that is an absolutely critical distinction.

Now can you grant to me that there are many sincere and intelligent scientists that believe in the theory of intelligent design for a model, based on observations of the same facts? I think that it would be only honest of you to do so, if you really think about it. Do you agree?

[Rían]

whoops - hi Lizra! You posted while I was busy trying to get my thoughts down straight. I gotta run now, kid duties call - but I'll get back to you.

[BeardofPants]

Rian: Evolution itself can be proven to some extent. It is the "how" that we don't understand. We can be certain that hominids evolved; the uncertainty comes into play when we try and place together the pieces as to how they evolved.

As to your arguments that nothing can really be proven, that it all comes down to belief in some form or another... You are correct. I can not prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am not in fact part of the Red King's dream. However, it seems likely, whether or not I am part of someone elses dream, or my own, that in this existence, that evolution is probable. Heck, even a divine creation is possible... but certainly not the one given in the bible.

I used to be purely an atheist. Now I am an agnostic. Why? Because the fact of the matter is that there IS no way to prove how life began. BUT, there is compelling evidence to suggest that evolution is the key. Unlock this, and we will find the answers for the beginning of life. Until then, I'm not writing anything off.

[Lizra]

I hate to "think" this much , but this type of debate is good. I get bogged down with long posts filled with quotes from other sources. (I don't read lot's of them! shhhh!) I appreciate orignal thought and input Rian. Thank you.