Evolution in schools

[hashslinger]

Do you think that they should teach evolution in schools?

Evolution is scientific theory not scientific fact

I am not saying you should teach religion, but instead not teach how the earth was created until they have solid facts.

 

[The Crunchy]

It is true that it is a theory, and I think they should teach it as one.
Schools should talk about many different theories and let the student choose which they will believe, or whether they will keep an open mind to many possibilities. This will create an oppurtunity for free thought and benefit the student more than saying something is "right" without any doubt.

Nothing should be taught as a fact really, as nothing can be proven, only disproven.

 

[hashslinger]

Yes I think that, but the fact is that we have a very liberal school system that will shun any other ideas that contridict evolution.

Because of that, they will not let other students choose what they want to believe as fact, but instead they will teach evolution as "fact".

 

[Personal Jesus]

Scientists DO know that evolution is a solid fact. They have mountains of evidence, indisputable fossils and whatnot.

- Tons of fossils distributed over large geological areas, all of which are compatible with the ideas of where animal X evolved into animal Z and unto Y.
- Humans and chimpanzees have 98% similar DNA
- Close morphological details between humans and apes
- Similar psychological and instinctive behaviours between humans and apes
- Macro-Evolution and Natural Selection can be observed in drug-resistant bacteria. (This doesn't really prove that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, but it does prove that evolution exists)
- Apes have *exactly* 1 chromosome more than humans (proves we're closely related)

Think of it as a giant puzzle where 75% of it is solved, and you can clearly see that it resembles a house. The remaining 25% of the pieces are missing, but does that really mean you can't conclude that it's a house? It's the most logical, reasonable explanation and you'd have to be pretty ding-dong (oh yes I did!) ignorant on the subject to refute it simply because the remaining pieces have yet to be found. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Whether we were created by some big bully who lives in the skies or not is irrelevant, because we know that evolution is for real, even if the theory has not been fully proved due to biologists not having obtained a complete, transitional fossil record. And even that is too much to ask for, because how do you expect them to find a well-observed fossil from every single generation within the last 3 billion years? (approximately how long evolution itself has occured on our planet)

Edit: there's also already a thread exactly like this.

 

[Desir0]

Personal Jesus is right in some aspects.

That, and the fact that we wan't always have the proof we would ideally want, And all we can base from is what we do know.

so we should teach theory.. but subjects like that.. the exams answers can be whatever your opinion is, as long as you give reason

 

[FreedomFight]

Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created. It just disproves the literal definition that Christians believe that humans and dinosaurs were created in 7 days and coexisted some 6000 years ago.

 

[Analog]

Scientists DO know that evolution is a solid fact. They have mountains of evidence, indisputable fossils and whatnot.

- Tons of fossils distributed over large geological areas, all of which are compatible with the ideas of where animal X evolved into animal Z and unto Y.
- Humans and chimpanzees have 98% similar DNA
- Close morphological details between humans and apes
- Similar psychological and instinctive behaviours between humans and apes
- Macro-Evolution and Natural Selection can be observed in drug-resistant bacteria. (This doesn't really prove that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, but it does prove that evolution exists)
- Apes have *exactly* 1 chromosome more than humans (proves we're closely related)

Think of it as a giant puzzle where 75% of it is solved, and you can clearly see that it resembles a house. The remaining 25% of the pieces are missing, but does that really mean you can't conclude that it's a house? It's the most logical, reasonable explanation and you'd have to be pretty ding-dong (oh yes I did!) ignorant on the subject to refute it simply because the remaining pieces have yet to be found. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Whether we were created by some big bully who lives in the skies or not is irrelevant, because we know that evolution is for real, even if the theory has not been fully proved due to biologists not having obtained a complete, transitional fossil record. And even that is too much to ask for, because how do you expect them to find a well-observed fossil from every single generation within the last 3 billion years? (approximately how long evolution itself has occured on our planet)

Edit: there's also already a thread exactly like this.

Agreed, it's simple logicality. The fact that humans and chimpanzees have 98% similar DNA proves that at one point apes evovled into humans to better adapt their environments. Darwin's theory of evolution also ties into this. A species body and the species will take the necessary steps to survive.

 

[Power of Truth]

Yes I think that, but the fact is that we have a very liberal school system that will shun any other ideas that contridict evolution.

Because of that, they will not let other students choose what they want to believe as fact, but instead they will teach evolution as "fact".

I, as a single liberal, am not shunning anything that contradicts Evolution, that would basically be lying to myself. I just shun those that contradict without positive claims for themselves.

If I say that "1 rock plus another rock is 2 rocks", and you say "No, 1 rock plus another rock is 3 rocks because it's unlikely that the two rocks would be side-by-side", I'd simply call you a fool. That's basically what's happening between Evolution (1+1=2) and Creationism (1+1=3 because 2 is unlikely).


Another way of explaining this is from Bobby Henderson, the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He wrote to the Kansas State Board of Education, when they wanted to put Intelligent Design in school, saying that he believed the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserved the same time as Intelligent Design and Evolution, and used the exact same arguments as the ID-proponents. Just because he says he believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us (and just the way the ID-proponents believe a God did) doesn't mean it takes precedence over what has established evidence and successful experiments.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You can bump the other thread on this matter.