Should Evolution be taught in State Schools?

[Saliu]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

[Big Jim P]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory. Of course it should be taught in school. Creation is a religious belief and should be taught in church.

[Souseiseki]

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.

so, uh, how is evolution a religious belief?

[Souseiseki]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory. Of course it should be taught in school. Creation is a religious belief and should be taught in church.

worth noting at this point they took it to court on whether it was a scientific theory and got shot down by a bush appointed judge

[Big Jim P]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

So why did you violate the spirit of you first sentence with the rest of you post?

[Saliu]

As you probably got from the opening post, I am AGAINST having evolution taught in schools, it is a religous belief and therefore, either all Government Operated Schools must teach all religous beliefs on how the Earth and Humans came to exist. However, I propose that in Government Owned Schools, no theory on how the Earth and Humans came about, it is the most neutral point of view.

[Zottistan]

If we teach creation, liberals will whine. If we teach evolution, super-Christians will whine. So why must we teach anything to do with the origin of human life? Let that be for the parents.

EDIT: Ninja'd in General... I'm ashamed...

[Big Jim P]

As you probably got from the opening post, I am AGAINST having evolution taught in schools, it is a religous belief and therefore, either all Government Operated Schools must teach all religous beliefs on how the Earth and Humans came to exist. However, I propose that in Government Owned Schools, no theory on how the Earth and Humans came about, it is the most neutral point of view.

Read my first post.

[Saliu]

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.

so, uh, how is evolution a religious belief?

Evolution is the belief that the genetic code is the superhuman power or something like that, either way, atheisim is a religion of the superhuman power of evolution.

[Moutere]

schools should teach skills for inquiry, evaluation, communication and creative innovation and then let students discover 'facts' for themselves.

[Zottistan]

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.

so, uh, how is evolution a religious belief?

Evolution is the belief that the genetic code is the superhuman power or something like that, either way, atheisim is a religion of the superhuman power of evolution.

I don't think you understand evolution very well. Lucky difformities are not a "superhuman power", they're a genetic flaw that happened to be for the best.

[Saliu]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

So why did you violate the spirit of you first sentence with the rest of you post?

By religous debating, I mean a debate over which religon is right.

[Roan Cara]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory. Of course it should be taught in school. Creation is a religious belief and should be taught in church.

Ironically my church based school taught both so that we knew both points of view. That being said though I do agree with Jim, evolution has been scientifically proven I believe whereas we can't really prove creation. my own personal belief is the God chose to use evolution as His means of creation but as I say, I can't prove or disprove that and I accept that fact. As for atheism being a religion... I think at the least it is a belief system. As you say, they do have a set of ideas that they accept and follow as a group and belief in non belief is still belief.

[Big Jim P]

So why did you violate the spirit of you first sentence with the rest of you post?

By religous debating, I mean a debate over which religon is right.

Then you define evolution as religion in an attempt to get us to debate it as a religion vis-a-vis creationism.

[Terruana]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

Evolution is a scientific theory with mountains of evidence. Hell, it's not even that. It's an observable phenomenon. It is nothing like a religious belief. So of course it should be taught in schools, unless you're advocating that we stop teaching science altogether.

And no, atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of religion.

[Souseiseki]

As you probably got from the opening post, I am AGAINST having evolution taught in schools, it is a religous belief and therefore, either all Government Operated Schools must teach all religous beliefs on how the Earth and Humans came to exist. However, I propose that in Government Owned Schools, no theory on how the Earth and Humans came about, it is the most neutral point of view.

How can you teach biology without evolution in some form?

Again, how is it a religious belief?

[Radiatia]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

1. Evolution is not a religious belief, it's a scientific theory backed by screeds and screeds of evidence. Furthermore, when I was a Christian (I'm not now, but that's unrelated) I believed in evolution, as do the majority of Christians around the world, creationism being something that only appeared in the 1930s as a reaction to the growth and spread of Darwinism.

2. Atheists don't have a theology, or beliefs. That's what makes them atheists. Atheism is the default position, everyone is born an atheist and it's not until they are taught to accept beliefs that they become theists. I'd look up the meaning of the word "atheist" and the meaning of the word "religion". I don't have time to sit and explain to you all the ways in which your statements are so very incorrect.

3. No, evolution should not be taught in public schools, nor should the theory of gravity, how to read and write, mathematics, the heliocentric model of the universe, history or anything even remotely factual. </sarcasm>

[Saliu]

Evolution is the belief that the genetic code is the superhuman power or something like that, either way, atheisim is a religion of the superhuman power of evolution.

I don't think you understand evolution very well. Lucky difformities are not a "superhuman power", they're a genetic flaw that happened to be for the best.

Lucky Deformities are a Superhuman power, on the point that evolutionists place it as above any and all human control. The power does not have to be living, and deformities do have things to do with the geepnetic code.

[Tubbsalot]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

... I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

Really?

Anyway yes evolution should be taught in state schools, and in fact all schools, because the point of school is to educate you and shape you into a functioning human being. That's a lot harder when you think everything got magyyked into existence just as it is now, contrary to all human knowledge. Fosters the sort of ridiculous illogical thinking that gives you the American South.

Also no atheism isn't a religion, by definition, because there's no deity of any sort. If you think "beliefs" qualifies something as a religion maybe you should take a look at how the Twin Churches of Liberalism and Conservatism have affected the world over the years (they haven't because they don't exist because they're not religions).

[Common Territories]

I don't want this thread ruined with religous debating, take that somewhere else!

This is a question of morale, should Evolution be taught in schools?

First of all, Evolution is a religous belief, just the same as Creation is. The major difference is that Evolution is supposidly not the belief of a religion, but of the irreligous. However, even that is wrong, is it not the Atheist belief? Are Atheist truly irreligous? They have a theology and beliefs, therefore that must make Atheisim a religion.

Anyway, the topic is should Evolution be taught in Public /State (Government Owned) Schools. I also encourage your thoughts on Atheisims status, is it a religion?

Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory. Of course it should be taught in school. Creation is a religious belief and should be taught in church.

^ What you said. Except it's actually a fact now and is proven by science. But yea what you said entirely.

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

If we teach creation, liberals will whine. If we teach evolution, super-Christians will whine. So why must we teach anything to do with the origin of human life? Let that be for the parents.

EDIT: Ninja'd in General... I'm ashamed...

I am sorry, but this is a textbook example of the Golden Mean Fallacy. Just because there are two sides to something doesn't mean that one side isn't right and the other wrong.

[Roan Cara]

schools should teach skills for inquiry, evaluation, communication and creative innovation and then let students discover 'facts' for themselves.

this

[Tubbsalot]

Evolution is the belief that the genetic code is the superhuman power or something like that, either way, atheisim is a religion of the superhuman power of evolution.

Lucky Deformities are a Superhuman power, on the point that evolutionists place it as above any and all human control. The power does not have to be living, and deformities do have things to do with the geepnetic code.

Have you actually finished primary school, out of curiosity? Don't know where you get off pretending to be an expert when you can't even spell "genetics," nevermind understand what genetics are.

[Souseiseki]

I don't think you understand evolution very well. Lucky difformities are not a "superhuman power", they're a genetic flaw that happened to be for the best.

Lucky Deformities are a Superhuman power, on the point that evolutionists place it as above any and all human control. The power does not have to be living, and deformities do have things to do with the geepnetic code.

are you really comparing genetic mutations with god?

as a natural process it is inherently, uh, not super natural.

[Terruana]

As you probably got from the opening post, I am AGAINST having evolution taught in schools, it is a religous belief and therefore, either all Government Operated Schools must teach all religous beliefs on how the Earth and Humans came to exist. However, I propose that in Government Owned Schools, no theory on how the Earth and Humans came about, it is the most neutral point of view.

Oh. You're one of these people. I'm quite glad I saved this then:
Evolution is not a religious belief, it's a scientific fact. Creationism is, in the scientific community, a joke. Nobody takes it seriously, and it is ABSOLUTELY NOT an alternative. Since you're clearly pretty ignorant about it, here's a post I made in the last creationism vs evolution thread I saw on NS.

First, some definitions:

Most importantly, what "Theory" means in Science: "a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena."

See that? Calling it a theory doesn't mean it isn't proven. In fact, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence for it. Not a single person in any scientific field will ever tell you that evolution is false because "it's just a theory".

Pruves et al (1996) defines evolution as ‘Any gradual change. Organic evolution, often referred to as evolution, is any genetic and resulting phenotypic change in organisms from generations to generation’ and evolution biology as ‘The collective branches of biology that study evolutionary processes and their products’ e.g., the diversity and history of living things'.

I often hear people chucking around the terms micro evolution and macro evolution in these kinds of threads too, so here's the definitions for those:

Micro evolution – 'The processes of evolution that operate within the population – including directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection in response to natural selection (i.e. changes in allele frequencies)'.

Macro evolution - 'The patterns of evolution at and above the species level e.g., speciation, polygenetic relationship and species systematics'.

When you say "I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution", you are contradicting yourself. They are the same thing, but acting on different units of selection.

Charles Darwin published his theory in 1859 under the title "On the Origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.".

The previous theories were entirely based around religion, just like modern "competing theories".
These religious theories, however, relied on some very flawed assumptions. I'll just use Christianity as an example, since it's likely the one most people here are familiar with.

Christianity’s 'Great Chain of Being'

• Organisms were seen as IMMUTABLE (unaltered since creation).

• Assumed a very young Earth that was formed < 10,000 years ago.

• Catastrophes (e.g. the KT extinction) explained the extinct organisms found in the fossil record.

To clarify this right now, these are all wrong. I'll explain why in more detail later.

Okay, basics of evolution:
The theory of evolution pretty much revolves around natural selection. This is defined as 'The differential contribution of offspring to the next generation by genotypes belonging to the same population'.

Darwin knew that a similar process occurred in artificial selection, such as pigeon breeding, and argued that a similar process must exist in nature.

IMPORTANT!

Natural Selection is based on 3 key, INDISPUTABLE facts.

1. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
2. Individuals vary in their characteristics.
3. Many characteristics are inherited by offspring from their parents.

So, it follows logically that some individuals will be better suited to their environment; they will survive and reproduce more successfully than individuals without those characteristics. Because of this, future generations will thus contain more genes from better-suited individuals, and as a result, characteristics will evolve over time to resemble those of the better-suited ancestors.

With me so far? Good.

Darwin's theory was based on 3 major propositions.

1. Species are not immutable; they change over time.
2. Divergent species share a common ancestor.
3. The mechanism is natural selection.

Now, a quick side track:

Neo-Darwinism is the result of combining Darwin's original theory with a thing called Central Dogma, which was first proposed by Francis Crick in 1958. Central dogma essentially boils down to DNA leads to RNA which leads to proteins. What this essentially does it prove that genes are absolutely, definitely, linked to phenotype.

Experiments carried out by Maynard-Smith in 1998 have shown that RNA replicase makes errors at a constant rate (approximately once in every 10,000 bases). This is proof that an organisms genes change over time. In other words, they evolve. Using this knowledge, we can compare the DNA of two species and, by seeing how many differences there are, calculate how far back their last common ancestor was. This is useful for determining how closely related two species actually are.

The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd in 1989 demonstrated that within 8 generations, speciation can occur, and that geographical separation is not always necessary. This is INDISPUTABLE evidence that new species can and do evolve, and that organisms are not immutable, thus disproving the first assumption of Christianity's 'Great chain of being'.

Okay. Evidence time. The evidence for evolution is split into three major categories:

A. Comparison of currently living species, either (1) by phenotypic traits or (2) by molecular analysis of DNA or proteins.
B. Rapidly evolving organisms (eg bacteria, parasites etc).
C. The fossil record.

Let's start with the fossil record.

To start off, there is a problem with studying fossilisation, and that is the rarity of fossilisation.

The fossilisation of an organism requires a very special set of circumstances:
-Almost immediate burial
-Geological stability to prevent mechanical destruction
-Bacterial decay at a particular rate
-Mineralising groundwater
-Progressive sedimentation and erosion to bring the fossil near to the surface, but not exposed and eroded itself.

Therefore, we can conclude that the observable fossil record must be very sparse compared to the actual diversity of life in the history of the planet. But it's complete enough to aptly demonstrate evolution, in particular through "link species" such as Archaeopteryx, Dimetrodon and Hylonomus.

While we're on the topic of fossils, I should mention that using Radiometric dating techniques, we can measure how old fossils are to see when that organism lived. As a side effect, we can also disprove the second assumption of the 'Great chain of being' - that is, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Radiometric dating is based on measuring radioisotope decay. For geological time periods the uranium-lead and potassium-argon decays can measure back beyond 3 Billion Years Ago, while carbon-14 can measure more recent remains to about 60,000 years ago.

Getting back to fossils. I'll use two major examples to demonstrate how a species can be seen to evolve through the fossil record.

First - Reptiles evolving into Mammals.

Modern mammals are Endothermic vertebrates, defined by unique features such as:
- Being insulated by hair
- Mammary glands and lactation
- Jaw structure + heterodony (teeth)
- Ear bones

Mammal-like reptiles first appear in the fossil record in the Carboniferous period – (360 million to 300 million years ago).
This early ancestor of mammals was termed a "Synapsid".
Synapsida are easily separated from other amniotes by the opening low in the skull roof behind each eye, leaving a bony arch beneath each, accounting for their name. They are also distinguished from other amniotes by having a single opening (temporal fenestra) in their skull behind each eye.

Synapsids evolved into mammals over hundreds of millions of years, from the Carboniferous to the late Triassic. This progression can be seen by looking at the evolution from Pelycosauria (primitive), to Therapsida (more advanced), to Cynodont (Pretty much a mammal) and finally onto proto-mammals such as Sinoconodon.

The closest known relative to modern mammals is called Hadrocodium wui, which evolved about 195 million years ago. Looking at the large brain cavity and the middle ear bones that have separated from the jaw, it's quite clearly a mammal. This all pretty aptly demonstrates that mammals evolved from reptiles. You can literally see it happening in the fossils.

Second- Human evolution (Because I'm sick of ignorant people saying "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?")
Homo Sapiens are of the order primates (this is another of those indisputable facts).

The common features of primates are:
-Enlarged brain, two unique creases
-Big forward facing eyes
-Distinct middle ear structure
-Collar bone
-Separate radius and ulna
-Separate tibia and fibula
-Five flexible digits per limb
-Fully opposable thumb
-Distinctive heel bone
-Usually nails not claws on digits

A simple tree of Primate taxonomy would go like this (further down the list = more closely related):

Lemurs, Lorises and Pottos
Tarsiers
New world monkeys
Old world monkeys
Gibbons
Orangutans
Gorillas
Chimpanzees and Bonobos
Humans

The reason monkeys are still around is because we aren't descended directly from them. We're descended from a common ancestor.

Homo Sapiens, like all species, also have a Family, called Hominids.
Our ancestors can be traced back almost 4 million years to a species called Australopithicus afarensis (3.8 to 3.4 million years ago). Fossilised remains of this species were found in Ethiopia in 1974. A similar species from 4.4 million years ago, Australopithecus Ramidus is thought to be the 'missing link' between humans and apes.

The evolution of man becomes really clear when you look at the 'Transitional Hominids', starting with Homo habilis. This species existed 2.0 to 1.4 million years ago in east and southern Africa. Some typical characteristics of Homo habilis were:

-Brain 25-40% bigger than closest past relative
-Tool user
-Increased speech/complex behaviour
-Smaller jaws, molars
-Truncal erectness
-Fully bipedal
-No sexual dimorphism



Next came Homo erectus, around 1.8 to 1.6 million years ago. He displayed characteristics even more similar to us:

Taller (1.7m), modern man body proportions
Pelvic similar
Large cranial capacity (700- 1225ml)
No chin, heavy facial architecture
Teeth and Jaws smaller than habilis



Then we also have our dear friends the Neanderthals, 400,000 to 300,000 years ago. They persisted until about 27,000 years before the present, and lived alongside Homo sapiens for 10,000 years before being driven to extinction. They displayed characteristics such as:

-Large nasal openings
-Large cranial cavity
-Rounded top and back of head
-Heavily built, muscular
-Low population density
-Use of tools, blades, decorated objects



And then finally there's Homo sapiens, more commonly known as us. We evolved about 200,000 years ago.
Modern man can trace it's routes back to a recent relative (a species of Homo sapiens) 45,000 to 50,000 years ago from east Africa.



Basically, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans were not created instantly by god at the dawn of time.

Right, now, the other evidence sources.

A - Comparison of currently living species, either (1) by phenotypic traits or (2) by molecular analysis of DNA or proteins.
I think (1) is pretty well covered in the fossils, to be honest, so I'll go straight onto (2).

The major molecular techniques used to provide evidence for evolution are comparing proteins and comparing the actual DNA of different species. At the protein level, they use techniques such as Gel electrophoresis, Amino acid sequencing and Antibody reactivity, and at the DNA level they use Base sequencing, Hybridisation, Restriction enzyme maps, chromosome maps and linkage disequilibrium.

Without going into too much detail, they can compare how much of your DNA you share in common with another species, and therefore how closely related you are. For example, at the Order level, our closest ancestors are Chimpanzees, and we share 96% of our DNA with them. 96% out of 3 billion nucleotides. That's quite a similarity.

Finally, B - Rapidly evolving organisms (eg bacteria, parasites etc).
The best example of this is Antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This not only visibly shows evolution occurring at the Species level, but it also proves that the mechanism is definitely natural selection.

Bacterial evolution is 'the process whereby cells develop to exploit new environmental niches and to develop a tolerance (or resistance) to selection pressures'.
Due to random gene mutations, some bacteria will always have a natural resistance to specific antibiotics. This is usually because it does not possess the ‘target’ for antibiotic action. For example, some bacteria do not have cell walls and so are unaffected by agents which act on this particular target. These bacteria always have been and always will be resistant.

So lets say there's a colony of Staphylococcus aureus sat inside you, happily dividing away. Then you go to the doctors and get some antibiotics. The antibiotics start to kill off the colony, until most of them are gone. Obviously, the resistant bacteria will cling on for the longest and be the last to go. If you stop taking the antibiotic before the last few bacteria have been killed, most likely because the symptoms are gone and you feel better, those few surviving bacteria which are resistant to that antibiotic are going to start dividing again. And bacteria divide fast. Before you know it, the colony is back to it's original size, except this time, all of the bacteria are resistant because they all got their genes from those few bacteria that survived. And thus MRSA was born.

These conditions can be easily replicated in a lab, and you can actually see evolution taking place. All those of you who deny 'Macro evolution', evolution on the species level, you are wrong. You can literally sit and watch the emergence of a new species through natural selection.

There are also other ways for bacteria to 'evolve' and develop resistance, such as transduction and conjugation, but I won't go into that.