Should evolution be taught in schools?
-
No.It is true, you just need to go to some American Christian websites to find out the truths.Originally posted by Jem777:You're shitting me right? -
Then why are people arguing with the Christians about evolution if it's not about the origin of life?Originally posted by stupidissmart:U can read the experts report and evidence isn't it
Have u ever learned science before ? U don't need to be an expert to read science, u just read the conclusions made by scientist, see if it is logical or conduct your own experiment if u r in doubt
And evolution is not talking about the origin of life
Scientists promote a spontaneous origin of life without a creator begin with the assumption that God does not exist.
Then they devise an imaginative scenario whereby molecules come together to form a living being. Since the evolutionists have an “explanation”, they use it to insist that life can arise without God. This is simply circular reasoning.
With the evidence mounting that life could not arise spontaneously on the earth, more and more evolutionists are reaching to the stars for the answer.
Increasingly, secular textbooks raise the possibility that life or the molecules of life were transported via meteorites, comets or asteroids to the earth. Once limited to the realm of science fiction, this possibility is viewed as the only possibility for those who reject a Divine Creator.
For them, if life could not originate spontaneously on the earth, then it must have formed somewhere else and then traveled here.
The evolution theory keeps changing with the times. Should it be taught in schools? My opinion is not now unless it can be proven with concrete scientific evidence. -
Evolutionism and paganism I can understand why the church would be against it. But vegetarianism? And what truths exactly? I've done some research and I want hard evidence, something besides something that's from a book that's been 'approved' by a few old men.Originally posted by ahsiang12:No.It is true, you just need to go to some American Christian websites to find out the truths. -
I don't have time to go through every single one of those quotes. But certainly, some of those quotes exhibit the characteristics of typical creationists/religious dishonesty.Originally posted by googoomuck:People would rather believe in experts then believe in you, isn't that true?
Evidence to prove biological evolution...like how a land animal adapts to living in waters.
Theory of evolution cannot produce scientific facts on how life begins.
Creationists love to use quote mining because absent evidence, they need to use the argument from authority.
This is a more complete text of Darwin's quote:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
So what Darwin is saying is that it seems absurd that the eye could have evolved by natural selection, BUT it is possible if the intermediate steps are useful.
Creationists also love to quote mine Einstein. It's unfortunate that he liked to use the word "God" - though what he meant by God is not the judeo-christian god.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
Einstein's god is Spinoza's god:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger -
Stephen Hawking likes to use the word God as well. But he doesn't care if you say "goddidit" as long as you accept the science.
One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics.
-Stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes -
Then why are people arguing with the Christians about evolution if it's not about the origin of life?
I think u r going on a wrong direction. Evolution talk about how living beings changes with time. It does not specifically mention about how life started.
In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction.
U don't even know wat is evolution, and u already start to say it is wrong. If u want to talk about origin of life, I can start debate on tat direction as well. But u need to know it is fundamentally different from evolution.
U know why does people argue about evolution ? It is because in the bible it states men is create from dust on the ground and god specifically make it to form human. Evolution states tat men r not formed from dust but r gradually evolved from ape like beings.
Abiogenesis is the study on origin of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
If u doubt tat, actually I won't disagree with u We don't really know and tat is a fact. But we don't assume it is made by a god just because we don't know -
The "God" which these Scientists quotes is very different from the personal Gods believe in religions such as Christanity and Islam...etc...
It is a naturalistic, non-personal (i.e. don't have some human-like personality/emotions as we know it) God. It is a poetic re-expression of the Universe (or rather, what and all that exists) and that we are all but a part of this "God".
It is the naturalistic Pantheist God. Which is compatible with certain forms of Zen/Chan Philosophy in regards to the world (i.e. we are not separated from our surroundings)...and doesn't contridicts Physical laws.
http://www.pantheism.net -
And it's even more complicated than that because there are almost as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians. To know why a religious person rejects evolutionary theory, one must really examine every component of his beliefs.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U know why does people argue about evolution ? It is because in the bible it states men is create from dust on the ground and god specifically make it to form human. Evolution states tat men r not formed from dust but r gradually evolved from ape like beings.
Young Earth Creationists hold that the bible is perfect and holds the literal truth. They reject evolution for many many reasons - including that it takes too long (they believe the universe is 6000 years old). that there was a world wide flood, and they believe that the world was created in 7 literal days. Kent Hovind is an example of someone who holds this view.
That's probably the most extreme view. Then you have a whole spectrum of beliefs that follow.
Old Earth Creations except the evidence that the universe and the earth are billions of years old and they interpret one "day" as being a very long time. However, some of them believe that God really created and placed each plant and animal in the Garden of Eden, before creation man. And that evolution only occured after the Fall.
Some Creationists believe that God provided the spark that formed the universe. Just as a skillful pool player knows how to hit the cue ball so that the he pockets the correct balls, God could foresee how things would develop. These Creationists believe that the Fall of Man is just a metaphor or a myth.
Other creationists believe in God, but have completely no problem with science at all. They argue that because God gave us free will, he purposely limited himself. So even though God is still all-powerful, he has chosen to to limit himself until the end of time. So God just created the universe, in a way consistent with what we have discovered with science, and is watching how things play out. They strongly believe that through scientific inquiry, you can "know the mind of God." They believe it is possible because God created man in his own image with the power of reason that they might know God.
And as I said earlier, there are a million other variations on the theme.
So why is there a controversy? It's simple. People want evidence to support dogma.
Theories of abiogenesis and evolution change all the time. That's a good thing. That's science. As we learn more, we refine our theories and improve them. When we learn something is wrong, we change the theory and in the process, create a better one.
We still teach the theory of luminiferous ether in school, even though it's wrong. It's an excellent illustration of how science works. The ether was proposed as a possible explanation for the dualistic nature of light. The ether hypothesis allowed scientists to make testable hypothesis. Eventually, experiments became refined enough for scientists to determine that the ether was not a useful hypothesis. The ether could not be detected. Other explanations, better descriptions were devised. Science moved on. -
You may want to consider the points in this video, which addresses the probability argument.Originally posted by googoomuck:continue from preivous post....
From Professor Harold Morowitz
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"
From Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability
"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc -
So why is there a controversy? It's simple. People want evidence to support dogma.
And u know wat the evidence is ? Science
Despite all the booing and sh!t throwing at science, they still treat science as the basis of truth -
The earthÂ’s surface is deposited in layers. We are told that old fossils are found in old rock layers and recent fossils are found in recent rock layers.
Both creationists and evolutionists agree to use this to estimate the age of the fossils.
What if a ‘modern man’ skull is found in the lower layers? Rewrite the evolution theory or call the discovery a hoax?
The discovery of a live prehistoric coelacanth thought to have become extinct caused genuine embarrassment for the evolutionists. The recorded fossils of the coelacanths indicated that they had been around over 400 million years ago.
They had to scramble for ideas to explain why these animals did not evolve while others did.
Since the evolutionists are now looking at the universe for evidence to support their theory, they must have realized that the evidence on earth can debunk the theory.
If the theory of evolution must also evolve with time, then the theory is not conclusive. What is the next generation of children going to be taught about evolution? -
What if a ‘modern man’ skull is found in the lower layers? Rewrite the evolution theory or call the discovery a hoax?
U r absolutely right in here. If u can find a modern skull in the lower layers, u prove evolution to be wrong. It do not need to be human skull, any skull of any species can do
But so far, it is never found
Why do u think creationist never find such a thingThe discovery of a live prehistoric coelacanth thought to have become extinct caused genuine embarrassment for the evolutionists. The recorded fossils of the coelacanths indicated that they had been around over 400 million years ago.
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
They had to scramble for ideas to explain why these animals did not evolve while others did.
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.htmlSince the evolutionists are now looking at the universe for evidence to support their theory, they must have realized that the evidence on earth can debunk the theory.
Says who ? R u talking about abiogenesis ?If the theory of evolution must also evolve with time, then the theory is not conclusive. What is the next generation of children going to be taught about evolution?
Then they shouldn't be taught science at all. Gravity, atomic and many other laws r all theories and they may change to become a better model. Take note tat the current model is not wrong. It is just not detailed enough. The "evolve" is becoming better, not meaning the old theories r all wrong -
I think anything controversial shouldnt be tought in schools.
And besides, isnt that evolution theory isnt firm yet..? It is just a guess, or a theory, and it is not 100% confirmed scientific theory yet. So I think its better not to include it, or maybe include it but state clearly that it is just a possible theory. This theory is really still a theory (guess) and different from proven Pythagoras theory.
Meat Pao. -
And besides, isnt that evolution theory isnt firm yet..? It is just a guess, or a theory, and it is not 100% confirmed scientific theory yet. So I think its better not to include it, or maybe include it but state clearly that it is just a possible theory. This theory is really still a theory (guess) and different from proven Pythagoras theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
It is commonly misunderstood that there are known truths that are superior to theories. If this is actually the case, then the seemingly "known truth" is actually a theory itself. One theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of truth, but both statements are theories. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.
A misunderstanding of the word "fact" contributes to confusion in regard to the meaning of "theory." An appreciation of the actual meaning of "fact" and "knowledge" can help to clarify an understanding of the meaning of "theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature. The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, with the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about
Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution
Evolution is a fact. -
Quote:Originally posted by stupidissmart:The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
Tthe theory of evolution teaches that we should see constant change in species.
So now the evolutionists have to agree that sometimes natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically after a live ‘renegade’ coelacanth was caught in 1937. With this kind of explanation, the evolutionists will win either way! -
the acknowledgement of creationism coupled with evolution pretty much implies that many religions are false, especially those that stated that humans were created from nothing instead of evolving from microorganism.
-
Tthe theory of evolution teaches that we should see constant change in species.
Which part of evolution states tat all species must change a lot If their body is already good in adapting to their environment, then there r little need for change. Horseshoe crab never change for 250 million years. C o c kroaches also never changes for 80 million years
Go to scientific organisation and show me any line stating tat ALL species must change. I hope u have the right idea on wat evolution is about -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
If humans evolved from apes, why are there apes today which are not evolved to be humans?
Which part of evolution states tat [b]all species must change a lot If their body is already good in adapting to their environment, then there r little need for change. Horseshoe crab never change for 250 million years. C o c kroaches also never changes for 80 million years
Go to scientific organisation and show me any line stating tat ALL species must change. I hope u have the right idea on wat evolution is about
[/b]
So if theory of evolution can have the explanation of why some animals evolved and some doesn't, isn't it a win-win situation?
Whereas the creationists only say that creation stays very much unchanged over time.
There are reports that modern human skulls were discovered at the layer where ape-man fossils are expected. So, if humans are evolved from apes, can ape-man and humans co-exist at the same time in the past?
I will find the site when I'm free but I expect the evolutionists have an answer to this too. -
If humans evolved from apes, why are there apes today which are not evolved to be humans?
The other apes have taken a different route of evolution altogether. It is not like they r still trying to evolve to become human. Just think about tis... If american and australian r from european, why r european still around ? Just because some european r becoming american doesn't mean the whole population of european r becoming american or they extinct. Just because american may be military more powerful than australia doesn't mean there shouldn't be any australian. Your question is asking in the same direction
Just look at the difference between u and your nephew and see the difference, then think how big the changes should be given a few hundred millions years ago.So if theory of evolution can have the explanation of why some animals evolved and some doesn't, isn't it a win-win situation?
Wat is wrong with having a good model tat predict nature If it cannot explain simple signs tat it will never achieve the rank of theory.Whereas the creationists only say that creation stays very much unchanged over time.
Obviously tat is factually wrong. Many species have been observed to change with timeThere are reports that modern human skulls were discovered at the layer where ape-man fossils are expected. So, if humans are evolved from apes, can ape-man and humans co-exist at the same time in the past?
show me the report first. -
Vegetarianism is part of paganism and they are inter-related.If you ask the pagans this question'' Are you all vegetarians?'', they will definitely answer ''yes''.Vegetarianism is the diet ritual of paganism.You seem to know so little of this religio-spirituality stuff.The local mainstream media seem to censor much of this religio-spirituality stuff from general viewers.This is to protect young viewers.Some of these websites are been censored on the internet.This religio-spirituality stuff gets the same rating as pornography.Originally posted by Jem777:Evolutionism and paganism I can understand why the church would be against it. But vegetarianism? And what truths exactly? I've done some research and I want hard evidence, something besides something that's from a book that's been 'approved' by a few old men. -
Evolutionary theory is as firm as any other scientific theory.Originally posted by Meat Pao:I think anything controversial shouldnt be tought in schools.
And besides, isnt that evolution theory isnt firm yet..? It is just a guess, or a theory, and it is not 100% confirmed scientific theory yet. So I think its better not to include it, or maybe include it but state clearly that it is just a possible theory. This theory is really still a theory (guess) and different from proven Pythagoras theory.
Meat Pao.
The nature of science means that no theory is ever "firm". Theories are always changing and evolving as we learn more.
A mathematical theory, or mathematical proof, is different from a scientific theory - though admittedly, one can argue that there are many similarities.
To give another example, we are still not sure what light really is. Some argue that light is fundamentally a particle that exhibits wave-like properties. Others argue that light is fundamentally a wave, and have an explanation of how a wave can produce particulate type behavior. This doesn't mean, however, that we drop any discussion of light just because there is a genuine controversy.
However, there is no controversy for evolutionary theory. The framework of evolutionary theory is as solid as any other well-established scientific theory. Evolutionary theory has been experimentally falsified countless of times and it is the foundation of modern biology.
Creationists have tried to create a controversy. However, they are creating one where none exists because of their religious dogma. But they are no different from the moon hoaxers, who claim that the moon landings were faked, or people that claim that thimerosal in vaccines cause autism. -
This is like asking if stupidity should be taught in schools.Originally posted by soleachip:The question is why shouldn't it be taught in schools?
How can you teach people something that people made up with their imagination?
Why not teach witchcraft and Harry Potter spells in school? -
Lol do you even know what the pagan religions are? Wait, of course you do, you know more about religio-spirituality than I doOriginally posted by ahsiang12:Vegetarianism is part of paganism and they are inter-related.If you ask the pagans this question'' Are you all vegetarians?'', they will definitely answer ''yes''.Vegetarianism is the diet ritual of paganism.You seem to know so little of this religio-spirituality stuff.The local mainstream media seem to censor much of this religio-spirituality stuff from general viewers.This is to protect young viewers.Some of these websites are been censored on the internet.This religio-spirituality stuff gets the same rating as pornography. Of course, getting your information from a biased source is much better then getting none at all right? You, sir, are a classic example of the dunning kruger effect. -
Many religion (including Christanity) were actually inspired from paganism and older religions.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ -
If creationism is to be taught in schools, then so should evolution. It's either both or none, so that pupils can be exposed to different ideologies and be allowed to decide for themselves, without a particular bias.