Should Evolution be taught in State Schools?

[Dyakovo]

Yes, why go by properly corrected names proposed by researchers and professionals when it's found that the name does not properly match the people it's effecting.

Because it's less hilarious that way.
Imagine a conservative senator's reaction when he is told that he's affected with Gay-Related Immune Deficiency.

"But I'm straight and even married, doc... how could I have it?"
"Be not afraid. It's perfectly fine in modern medical opinion. Thousands live with it for years just fine."
"Really, doctor, so you think I have a chance?"
"Oh, surely. Here, let me give you this book..."
"What, is it about dealing with five stages of grief? I don't want any of that!"
"Oh, not at all. It's just to help you with coming out."

So you admit that you used the term to troll people.

[Mavorpen]

GRID is what the media originally called AIDS, it stood for "gay-related immune deficiency". What Vault fails to realize is that HVI/AIDS was never called GRID by medical professionals. The name used originally by the CDC was the 4H disease, a name the dropped (to be replaced with AIDS) when it was discovered that the disease had no real connection to a person's sexuality.

It's like how credible physicists (or scientists in general) don't refer to the Higgs boson as the "God particle."

[Katganistan]

Why would we want to dumb down our education system any further by teaching creationism/ID? If some people want to continue to remain willfully ignorant of reality (by believing in creationism/id), then that is their business, but they should not be allowed to inflict their stupidity on others.

Amen, Brother. Preach it!

If you want a RELIGIOUS view of science, go to a RELIGIOUS school.

[Katganistan]

You know how everyone is bawwing that the pandas are going to die? That's natural selection. We're better than Pandas.

And then evolutionists go on to claim that their belief isn't immoral.

If we allow the teaching of these egotistic and irresponsible theories in schools to continue, soon we won't only be lamenting the loss of dodos, pandas and dolphins, but most all creatures we hold dear - and, eventually, someone will be lamenting the loss of humanity, because they were better than us. But hey, in that case, they will actually be.

Yeah? If God's so powerful, why doesn't HE save them?

[Katganistan]

"Reality" is what people think reality is.

So if you believe that you're Superman and jump off the Empire State Building, what? You're going to fly?

[Tlaceceyaya]

"Reality" is what people think reality is.

So if you believe that you're Superman and jump off the Empire State Building, what? You're going to fly?

If you view reality sideways, you will.

[Vault 1]

Yeah? If God's so powerful, why doesn't HE save them?

But does he need them? The point of making all these creatures was just to provide a survivable and pleasant environment for humans.

So if you believe that you're Superman and jump off the Empire State Building, what? You're going to fly?

In my mind, almost certainly yes. In anyone else's...

[Katganistan]

In what way -- other than whales are aquatic mammals (breathe air, females nurse their calves with milk) and dogs are terrestrial mammals (breathe air, females nurse their pups with milk) and that the whale flippers have rather hand-like skeletons within them? that they were also social and tend to move in pods (equivalent to packs)?

More info on whale evolution....

Just can't stop being a teacher, can you?

No, sorry. Can't.

[The Realm of God]

Precisely. We're not asking to bang down the doors of churches and demand they teach evolution. They can teach creation all they want - just leave it out of the goddamned science class, because it's, well, not science.

Technically it is science, because it belongs in theology, and theology is the scientific study of religion. Still, if we teach evolutionism, I do not see why we cannot teach creationism is schools, besides there is strong evidence for creationism (What is the chance of a big bang unintentionally creating a world able to support life? Very low.) and I believe that God directed evolution in seven days.

Pssst

Theology is interprating God and Religion via Scripture and tradition to produce new philosophies about the nature of the theologians religion.

It almost never includes science. Unless it's natural theology.

[Salemland]

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?

I am Christian. That said, I think Evolution MUST be taught.

Why? Because God is the God of the living. He is the Living God, after all! Why would he make a static world? Life is changing, adapting, both on the individual scale and on the large one. God is Eternal, we are not, not more than the trees, or the dogs, or the lions. He's not himself static, because such a word would have no meaning to qualify such a being. Why would his creation be static?

And then people will say ''Evolution is only a theory''. But hey, Gravity is also just a theory.


On the other hand, considering Atheism as the lack of religion and spirituality, it is really neither.

[The Realm of God]

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?

I am Christian. That said, I think Evolution MUST be taught.

Why? Because God is the God of the living. He is the Living God, after all! Why would he make a static world? Life is changing, adapting, both on the individual scale and on the large one. God is Eternal, we are not, not more than the trees, or the dogs, or the lions. He's not himself static, because such a word would have no meaning to qualify such a being. Why would his creation be static?

And then people will say ''Evolution is only a theory''. But hey, Gravity is also just a theory.


On the other hand, considering Atheism as the lack of religion and spirituality, it is really neither.

Atheism is nether, it's just lack of God. There are Atheistic religions and Atheistic Spirtualities.

[Lialoth]

In my mind, almost certainly yes. In anyone else's...

Well, I mean this in the most polite manner possible, how about you go about formulating a hypothesis for "My belief shapes reality" and then test it in lab testing. You need people who believe that they can fly if they jump off a building and a control crowd that don't believe that. Publish it in peer reviewed journal.

I feel sorry for the control crowd.

[Gibberish America]

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, nor is it a belief at all. it is a scientific THEORY - defined as, according to dictionary.com, "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena." It is the product by years of research, evidence from direct observation, and repeated, replicated experimentation. It serves to explain the variation between the countless species of lifeforms on Earth, and is not the explanation of how life on Earth first formed (abiogenesis). That being said, the theory of evolution is rooted in knowledge.

Creation, on the other hand, is a myth that originates from religious scripture, and people follow and believe this to be true because of their faith. Religious faith is based on belief without proof. Teachings differ from culture to culture, religion to religion, but there's a consistent pattern that most religious followers believe without the need to prove their beliefs on a concrete basis. It's also consistent that people who try to question faith on a real-world, concrete basis are usually discriminated against or ostracized. Although it is not limited to just Christianity, Christians are usually the most vocal about the subject and push the hardest to replace evolution with creationism, especially in public schools.

Putting one and one together,the more reasonable thing to teach children of the two - creation and evolution - in public schools, evolution wins hands down and should be included in the scientific curriculum of public schools - which generally include people from any religious background or none at all. For the most part, evolution does not favor the teachings of any one religion in particular. It's not faith-based, it's based in KNOWLEDGE. It's based on what we've already seen and what we already know. Isn't that what we want kids to do in school - KNOW more?

Yeah, Atheism is a religion - just like not smoking is a habit, and like how not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheists lack faith in a supreme being, meaning they either reject or do not accept the concept of God and superstition without any factual basis. For the most part, they prefer reason and knowledge to faith and theology.

[Vault 1]

Well, I mean this in the most polite manner possible, how about you go about formulating a hypothesis for "My belief shapes reality" and then test it in lab testing. You need people who believe that they can fly if they jump off a building and a control crowd that don't believe that. Publish it in peer reviewed journal.

Thank you. I would also like to make my reply as inoffensive as physically possible.
If I found the necessary crowd for this experiment, I would put my best efforts towards performing it. Not forgetting, of course, to hard-sell filming and broadcasting rights in advance. After the experiment, I would go on TV shows and attack science in an extremely populist manner, citing this very event as a shocking proof of inhumane scientific experiments going on day after day.

[Lialoth]

Thank you. I would also like to make my reply as inoffensive as physically possible.
If I found the necessary crowd for this experiment, I would put my best efforts towards performing it. Not forgetting, of course, to hard-sell filming and broadcasting rights in advance. After the experiment, I would go on TV shows and attack science in an extremely populist manner, citing this very event as a shocking proof of inhumane scientific experiments going on day after day.

When did I ever say to put the individuals in actual physical danger? If it's a belief-based effect they only merely have to believe they're actually jumping off a tall building. Or believe that failure to fly will cause them harm. I was pointing out your lack of real belief in what you said.

(Un)fortunately reality isn't influenced on popular opinion or belief. The fact you believe something hard enough doesn't make it true. The belief in an omnipotent creator deity, the rather selfish idea of personal creation and the idea of 'heaven' may be comforting to believe in and appealing to the masses but they have no rooting in fact or evidence.

The fact you're so willing to attack science in a populist manner speaks volumes of your intellectual honesty. It's right up there with creationists.

[Dyakovo]

Just can't stop being a teacher, can you?

No, sorry. Can't.

Good.

[Katganistan]

No, sorry. Can't.

Good.

I also can't help being educated, intelligent, and well-read.

[Desperate Measures]

Well, I mean this in the most polite manner possible, how about you go about formulating a hypothesis for "My belief shapes reality" and then test it in lab testing. You need people who believe that they can fly if they jump off a building and a control crowd that don't believe that. Publish it in peer reviewed journal.

Thank you. I would also like to make my reply as inoffensive as physically possible.
If I found the necessary crowd for this experiment, I would put my best efforts towards performing it. Not forgetting, of course, to hard-sell filming and broadcasting rights in advance. After the experiment, I would go on TV shows and attack science in an extremely populist manner, citing this very event as a shocking proof of inhumane scientific experiments going on day after day.

So, wait. You would do something utterly horrific and lethal as some sort of pseudoscience if it meant you could get attention for it in a way that would cause the downfall of genuine scientific experiments. I mean, in an ends justify the means sort of way ---- is that what you're saying?

[Keronians]

Good.

I also can't help being educated, intelligent, and well-read.

And modest.

[Revolutionarily]

That which is honestly facts which relate to evolution i do not see a huge problem with, however as far as i know i think we all must admit that within the scientific community there is much biased research, teachings, and so forth which pertain to the theory of evolution which i would like to see removed. Going through a basic high school biology class it was taught to me(i know there is more evidence out there or at least i would hope for it to be as popular a theory as it is) where things such as a finchs beaks change due to season or something like that. Yes it proves that they change but i am not sure how it relates to how humans have evolved from a monkey. Evidence such as this which is irrelevant to the evolving of human life should not be handed out in a worksheet and told it is valid evidence for how humans or other creatures have evolved. Kids are too ignorant to know other than what they are told.

[Dyakovo]

Good.

I also can't help being educated, intelligent, and well-read.

Well... Actually...
You could perform a lobotomy on yourself...

[Sociobiology]

The same article also says that smallpox may be responsible. The specific cause really doesn't matter to the base point though, what matters is that a certain percentage is immune/resistant/whatever to HIV.

Granted, save that Sociobiology said they had similar infection mechanisms. They don't.

yes and no, I looked into it and I am a little out of date, laboratory testing had showed that the CCR5 mutation reduced infection in white blood cells, and the mutation occurrence matched well with the map for Y pestis selective pressure. However later follow studies on live mice showed that this effect in negligible in the infection of a full animal, as Y pestis has other ways to spread. more recent studies have shown Smallpox may be a the the key as it's relatives use use almost the exact same infection process as HIV (no one knows what smallpox uses) but would lack the alternate methods of Y Pestis, and matches the evolutionary pressure map even better.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC299980/

http://www.virology.ws/2009/02/20/hiv-1/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15272490

[Person012345]

That which is honestly facts which relate to evolution i do not see a huge problem with, however as far as i know i think we all must admit that within the scientific community there is much biased research, teachings, and so forth which pertain to the theory of evolution which i would like to see removed. Going through a basic high school biology class it was taught to me(i know there is more evidence out there or at least i would hope for it to be as popular a theory as it is) where things such as a finchs beaks change due to season or something like that. Yes it proves that they change but i am not sure how it relates to how humans have evolved from a monkey. Evidence such as this which is irrelevant to the evolving of human life should not be handed out in a worksheet and told it is valid evidence for how humans or other creatures have evolved. Kids are too ignorant to know other than what they are told.

No. You're referring to the Finches that are isolated on islands. Each bird comes from the same base species, but each beak has adapted (through minor genetic changes and natural selection, aka the theory of evolution by natural selection) to cope with the unique conditions on their own island.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

[Sociobiology]

That answers it in full. A certain portion of population is immune to HIV because there are other plans for them than getting GRIDS by accident.

Indeed, they're being saved for cancer.

and type 2 AIDS, as well as the N, O, and P groups

[Nazi Flower Power]

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 based on atheism. Darwin did not cite non-existence of God as supporting evidence for his theory. Therefore, atheism is irrelevant to the debate.

Scientists have plenty of evidence for evolution which is not related to any theology, atheist or otherwise.