Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[danielsangeo]

We were talking about the theory of evolution and how it being a "theory" means that it's not a "fact". Of course, this is an error as there are theories about a whole bunch of things that no one disputes. For some reason, though, evolution stands with just a small handful of other subjects where too many people say that it's "just a theory".

 

A theory is a set of statements to explain certain facts using testing and observation. Simply having something be "just a theory" is like saying that a hot pan cooking food is "just a theory" or that plate tectonics (shifting continental plates) causing earthquakes is "just a theory" or gravity attracting masses to other masses (a human being 'pulled' to the surface of the Earth and the Earth being 'pulled' toward the sun) is "just a theory".

 

We are disputing the "just a theory" claim. Evolution is a fact. And a theory.

 

Evidence is given every time you see any living thing giving 'birth' to something else. You are not exactly like your parents and your parents are not exactly like their parents. That is evolution.

[alphabetagamma]

Evidence is given every time you see any living thing giving 'birth' to something else. You are not exactly like your parents and your parents are not exactly like their parents. That is evolution.

I agree, but the real problem creationists have is common descent. The real problem is that I'm not an creationist. I can't debate a side I don't believe in very well. But once again, This isn't what this thread is about! Can we please go back to talking about what's taught in schools!

[Rover]

This isn't what this thread is about! Can we please go back to talking about what's taught in schools!

 

It's pretty simple, when it comes to science, schools should teach basic well established scientific theories which have have become accepted by the vast overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

New ideas are invented, examined and tested in the scientific arena. No one rushed to get big bang cosmology and plate tectonics into the classroom while they were still largely hypothetical.

A high school classroom isn't the place to decide which ideas are correct and which aren't just because some people have a prior commitment to a belief or ideology which conflicts with modern science.

That's what started this whole creationism in schools mess. For most creationists the idea that god created everything as it is stated in the bible is non-negotiable, it HAS to be true, to them is is true by default and there exists no possibility that it isn't. They can never ever be convinced otherwise, every piece of evidence you show them and they'll just find a way to rationalize it away. They don't do research, they don't publish in peer reviewed journals, most of the time they don't even understand the very theory they're arguing against (the most fun thing you can do with a creationist is ask them to define the theory of evolution.) And the high profile creationists have demonstrated again and again that deception and dishonesty is an acceptable tactic as long as it helps convert people to the faith. And we should teach their ideas in a science classroom?

Edited May 31, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[BrainBlow]

We were talking about the theory of evolution and how it being a "theory" means that it's not a "fact". Of course, this is an error as there are theories about a whole bunch of things that no one disputes. For some reason, though, evolution stands with just a small handful of other subjects where too many people say that it's "just a theory".

 

A theory is a set of statements to explain certain facts using testing and observation. Simply having something be "just a theory" is like saying that a hot pan cooking food is "just a theory" or that plate tectonics (shifting continental plates) causing earthquakes is "just a theory" or gravity attracting masses to other masses (a human being 'pulled' to the surface of the Earth and the Earth being 'pulled' toward the sun) is "just a theory".

 

We are disputing the "just a theory" claim. Evolution is a fact. And a theory.

 

Evidence is given every time you see any living thing giving 'birth' to something else. You are not exactly like your parents and your parents are not exactly like their parents. That is evolution.

Germ theory, theory of relativity, atomic theory, theory of gravity, etc etc etc.

Will people call these "just theories"? No of course not! And The theory of Evolution is a THEORY of the same sort as the ones mentioned above; a scientific theory!

[danielsangeo]

Evidence is given every time you see any living thing giving 'birth' to something else. You are not exactly like your parents and your parents are not exactly like their parents. That is evolution.

I agree, but the real problem creationists have is common descent.

 

But "common descent" is plainly visible in any extended family. Your grandparents have three kids. One of those kids does the horizontal tango your other parent and gives birth to you.

 

Meanwhile, another one of those kids does the horizontal tango with someone else and gives birth to someone else. That person is your cousin.

 

The common ancestor for you and your cousin is your grandparents.

 

Follow the human species (Homo) and the chimpanzee species (Pan) back through ancestry and you'll eventually arrive at the common ancestor. It appears to be the Pierolapithecus catalaunicus (when dealing with older creatures, they don't generally have a 'lay' name like "humans" or "chimpanzees"...when talking about creatures, it's better to use their scientific names: Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, respectively).

 

We are still part of the same Family, though: Hominidae.

 

The real problem is that I'm not an creationist. I can't debate a side I don't believe in very well.

 

That's fine. I'm not going after you. Just explaining things.

 

But once again, This isn't what this thread is about! Can we please go back to talking about what's taught in schools!

 

I thought we were talking about what is, and should continue to be, taught in schools.

[alphabetagamma]

[Scorpia]

its not really my place to say how we came to be. if we were created, "thanks for the favor bro" if we were evolved then uh "thanks for the cell mutation"

but i don't think its important to worry about, at least not to me, im here. what more explanation do i need than that?

[Axeldeath]

@billyludwick

 

I feel that I need to at least try and understand the world around me and how it came to be, you might not give a crap but I do.

[Attilio]

Good Lord! 25 pages on such a stupid topic. FOR GOD'S SAKE. EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE. Creationism is religion. What do schools stand for? To teach science or to brainwash with religion???

[RueThePirate]

Teach both; Let the students decide for themselves. The only issue would be the biased teacher explaining the subject.

[Axeldeath]

@RueThePirate

That issue has already been discussed, I disagree with what you're saying.

[danielsangeo]

Teach both; Let the students decide for themselves.

 

First of all, as Axel said, we've already discussed this. Second of all, WHY?!

[Bjossi]

Good Lord! 25 pages on such a stupid topic.

 

This thread would be 5 pages or less without BTG's help.

[Michael Archer]

Go back to what's happening at schools? Ok:

 

For the most part, evolution is being taught in biology class since it's an empirically defined and is truly a scientific theory. Creation is taught in religious studies class.

 

If I'm not mistaken, evidence is gathered and then a model (theory) is built to explain how it works and to predict future trends.

 

You could argue that scientists are lying to you and that gravity doesn't exist, but that doesn't explain why gravity is such a great way to predict how things will move. Same goes for creation; it doesn't explain why the evolution model works so well.

[Kyon]

I'm good with neither.

[alphabetagamma]

I'm good with neither.

Interesting idea but, not all parents are the best teachers if that's what you mean.

[Rover]

I also I would like to add that among the first world nations, the United States is the only country which is even discussing this issue. In western Europe the teaching of evolution in schools is a complete non-issue. There is no controversy, it's a manufactroversy created by religious kooks who are convinced that the acceptance and teaching of the theory of evolution leads to moral decline.

[BTGBullseye]

Are all you Evolutionists so scared of losing followers that you can't let people decide what to believe when they're presented with 2 separate belief systems in an unbiased manner? If not, then why are you so anal about forcing your BELIEF on others?

 

Evolution is not fact. Theories are not yet facts.

 

Yes gravity is not a fact. it is an observed phenomena, and will remain a theory until what causes it is found, an the theory is proven factual.

[Rover]

Are all you Evolutionists so scared of losing followers that you can't let people decide what to believe when they're presented with 2 separate belief systems in an unbiased manner? If not, then why are you so anal about forcing your BELIEF on others?

 

Evolution is not fact. Theories are not yet facts.

 

Yes gravity is not a fact. it is an observed phenomena, and will remain a theory until what causes it is found, an the theory is proven factual.

 

Edit: Should we teach astrology as well when we teach students about astronomy? Go on the web there are just as many people who fervently believe in astrology just as much as creationists believe in creationism. Just because people fervently believe and adhere to something does not mean it has merit. Like I said before, a high school science classroom isn't the place to decide this anyway. No one rushed to get big bang cosmology into the science classroom while it was still largely hypothetical and competing with the steady state model. We didn't let 14 year olds decide on that, we didn't "teach the controversy" we let the scientific community decide based on the evidence. Same with plate tectonics. Why would creationism/ID get special treatment? Because it agrees with your religious views?

Is teaching students that F=ma forcing our beliefs on them? Is teaching students that the planet is round and not the center of the universe tantamount to forcing our beliefs on them?

You've got some weapons grade projection going on there btw.

 

Actually I do think teachers should talk about ID/creationism in a science class. To teach students to discern the difference between genuine science like evolution, which makes predictions, can be falsified, multiple lines of evidence and hundreds of thousands of studies and papers published in peer reviewed science journals.

And pseudoscience like creationism, which attempts to use scientific terminology but offers no models, yields no testable predictions, offers no evidence in support of it, and cannot be falsified. And instead of a community of scientists with educations from accredited universities publishing papers and studies in peer reviewed journals there is a collection of lunatics and con men who do not publish in peer reviewed science journals, instead dream up conspiracies to explain why they're not doing this.

I'm all for teaching students the scientific method, and how to think scientifically. That alone should put a huge dent in creationism's popularity.

 

Also BTG, you still don't understand the difference between facts and theories. We tried explaining this to you...

Theories explain facts, like the diversity of life. Theories are tested by getting them to make predictions and then test those predictions against observed reality.

Like the human #2 chromosome.

[BTGBullseye]

Edit: Should we teach astrology as well when we teach students about astronomy?

Why shouldn't we? Does it really hurt you so much that we can't?

 

Just because people fervently believe and adhere to something does not mean it has merit.

Keep that in mind...

 

Like I said before, a high school science classroom isn't the place to decide this anyway.

Actually I can't think of a better place to decide... It's where 90% of a teenager's choices are made anyways.

 

And pseudoscience like creationism, which attempts to use scientific terminology but offers no models, yields no testable predictions, offers no evidence in support of it, and cannot be falsified.

The model is, nothing evolves naturally. Evidence is personal observation, and 4 millennia of written records. Testable in what way? What are you meaning by "cannot be falsified"?

 

And instead of a community of scientists with educations from accredited universities publishing papers and studies in peer reviewed journals there is a collection of lunatics and con men who do not publish in peer reviewed science journals, instead dream up conspiracies to explain why they're not doing this.

Those "peer reviewed journals" don't publish anything that would disprove Evolution, and people in school either believe in Evolution already, or are writing exactly what the teacher wants to see. (we creationists learn early on that we fail any 'science' class if we don't pretend to take Evolution for granted)

 

I'm all for teaching students the scientific method, and how to think scientifically. That alone should put a huge dent in creationism's popularity.

Not really, but it would in the Evolutionist's beliefs.

 

Also BTG, you still don't understand the difference between facts and theories. We tried explaining this to you...

Your explanation was inaccurate.

 

Theories explain facts, like the diversity of life. Theories are tested by getting them to make predictions and then test those predictions against observed reality.

Theories explain the relations between observed phenomena, frequently they are inaccurate. Theories don't make predictions, you make a prediction based on a theory, then test to see if the theory works. Evolution that has been theorized cannot be tested in the few millennia that we have records for, it's 'predictions' have not come true, results that haven't occurred yet cannot be duplicated, and therefore the theory has no scientific proof.

 

Like the human #2 chromosome.

What about it?