Should Evolution be taught in State Schools?

[The United Nations of the Earth]

Evolution and creation are equally unproven. If one can not be taught, the other can not be taught either. However, I think it should be up to the discretion of the local school board since it's a level of government where parents are really able to give input and voice opinions about what their kids learn.

the voice of reason?! here?!!
hmm... sounds good!

[Turan Federasyonu]

I never told that creationism should be told in science lesson, we havent had a lesson called "science" at all. I told that both should be preaented by the educational system

So, you don't want to teach children science in school?

???????????????
I told that both the problem of the evolution and the creationism should be somehow incorporated in to the education. For me it is most appropriate to teach about the evolution in the biology classes, creationism in philosophy classes or some other humanitarian subject

[Swith Witherward]

Scientists are still wondering why people try to insert "evolution" in place of "abiogenesis" when debating "creation". As for the theory of evolution... Google "evidence of evolution".

[Mavorpen]

???????????????
I told that both the problem of the evolution and the creationism should be somehow incorporated in to the education. For me it is most appropriate to teach about the evolution in the biology classes, creationism in philosophy classes or some other humanitarian subject

So how do you choose which story/stories to teach?

[Cannot think of a name]

Long thread, been a while...has there been put forth an actual theory of creationism that is not just a half-assed critique on evolution?

I end up saying this every time, but the argument hasn't changed so I don't really have to adjust mine, if the theory of evolution has some elements in them that are wrong, they will likely be replaced by a similarly observable hypothesis and it isn't likely to be 'magic.' Because in the grand history of things we thought we knew and turned out to be something else, not once in all that time has the solution turned out to be 'magic.'

Now, if you were watching some sort of eternal roulette wheel that keeps coming up 'science' over and over and over again you might look at it and thing "Well, clearly, magic is due...", but you're not likely to be the kind of bettor that goes to bed with the money you came with.

[Vault 1]

What the fuck? That's complete nonsense, no school teaches that.

See the post I quote below as illustration.

Because it WAS. Other than Pearl Harbor, we had the factories, the manpower, the ability to produce more while Europe and the Pacific became a huge battlefield. But how is this relevant to this discussion?

Not to derail the thread, but you can easily see how constantly repeating something in a respected setting turns it into accepted truth.

The creationism movement aims to achieve the same - no, they won't stop the scientists from believing in evolution, but they'll solidify extra basis for religious beliefs in the rest.

[Terruana]

So, you don't want to teach children science in school?

???????????????
I told that both the problem of the evolution and the creationism should be somehow incorporated in to the education. For me it is most appropriate to teach about the evolution in the biology classes, creationism in philosophy classes or some other humanitarian subject

Ah okay. My misunderstanding teaching them in separate subjects like that would be fine.

[Individuality-ness]

What the fuck? That's complete nonsense, no school teaches that.

See the post I quote below as illustration.

Because it WAS. Other than Pearl Harbor, we had the factories, the manpower, the ability to produce more while Europe and the Pacific became a huge battlefield. But how is this relevant to this discussion?

Not to derail the thread, but you can easily see how constantly repeating something in a respected setting turns it into accepted truth.

The creationism movement aims to achieve the same - no, they won't stop the scientists from believing in evolution, but they'll solidify extra basis for religious beliefs in the rest.

So you want to turn our schools into religious drone factories?

I'd continue, but I have to leave the house.

[Dyakovo]

How about this: we stick to teaching students about fact so that they have a general idea on how the world works, and if they want to learn more, they can research on their own time.

how sensible! that is pretty much what i am saying, except i say we simply don't teach even the basics. just not at all. no one can be happy with everything, but this way christians aren't angry about no christianity and atheists aren't angry about christianity being forced down their throats. the only complaint is that the subject of origins is not discussed in school and even though that may be a problem for some people it is not a problem that would create religious tension as much.

I see no reason to placate ignorant fuckwads, especially not when it severely hampers children's education.

[Salandriagado]

Evolution and creation are equally unproven. If one can not be taught, the other can not be taught either. However, I think it should be up to the discretion of the local school board since it's a level of government where parents are really able to give input and voice opinions about what their kids learn.

the voice of reason?! here?!!
hmm... sounds good!

I see neither reason, nor anything else even remotely good (except for the spelling, I suppose) in the post that you quoted.

[Mavorpen]

Not to derail the thread, but you can easily see how constantly repeating something in a respected setting turns it into accepted truth.

No, I can't easily see something that doesn't exist. He said that we teach the American side of it, since in U.S. history, that's what you're supposed to learn. Ignorant students interpret this as us winning the entire war by ourselves.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's not a matter of preferring. It's a matter of what is empirically proven. In a school system, with people of various religious backgrounds, it is not the school's obligation to make kids believe anything. It is the school's obligation to educate.

If you want your children to believe in fairytales and shit, teach those to them at home. Don't expect or force a school to do it for you. That's irresponsible.

holy crap that is exactly right!
[edit] but well put!

Sorry, but I'm a bit sleepy and I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or are being sarcastic.

[Turan Federasyonu]

???????????????
I told that both the problem of the evolution and the creationism should be somehow incorporated in to the education. For me it is most appropriate to teach about the evolution in the biology classes, creationism in philosophy classes or some other humanitarian subject

Ah okay. My misunderstanding teaching them in separate subjects like that would be fine.

yes, and my point was not studying the creationism in a form of religous doctrine/according to a certain religion, about the theory that the the world and the life are created by a higher force. Just force, God or many gods, or that there is no god is already up to every person`s understandings and the people should not be forced to believe in anything.

[Dyakovo]

Secular nations like the United States. First Amendment, anyone?

a ok Im not from this nation so ok.
Nevertheless, the state schools cannot prefer one theory over another- neither the evolution, nor the creationism

Why the hell not? One is science (ToEvNS) and the other is religious bullshit (creationism).
Teach the kids the truth, and if they still want to believe the fairy tales, so be it.

[The United Nations of the Earth]

how sensible! that is pretty much what i am saying, except i say we simply don't teach even the basics. just not at all. no one can be happy with everything, but this way christians aren't angry about no christianity and atheists aren't angry about christianity being forced down their throats. the only complaint is that the subject of origins is not discussed in school and even though that may be a problem for some people it is not a problem that would create religious tension as much.

I see no reason to placate ignorant fuckwads, especially not when it severely hampers children's education.

i see your point, i just don't think the subject is important enough to risk all the potential bullshit from parents and students and their disputes in PTA meetings. the subject doesn't serve me in life either and i consider myself a 'spiritual' person. it is just a subject to bring up for argument's sake. like i said, i definitely see your point, but it's just not worth it if you ask me!

[Indira]

The creationism movement aims to achieve the same - no, they won't stop the scientists from believing in evolution, but they'll solidify extra basis for religious beliefs in the rest.[/quote]

The creationism movement seeks to replace well-understood and well supported facts with fairy tales.

[Absurd Ramblings]

Who says only religious claims would be scientifically investigated? Who says all of them would have to be? The point would obviously be learning to apply the scientific method to any and all claims.

Ok. Still don't see why you'd want to make creationism required, but whatever.

I wouldn't. I just wouldn't have a problem with it.

I would certainly have a problem with that. Your apparent assumption that a given curriculum would be so idiotic is a borderline strawman and cannot be taken seriously. (Unless a bunch of idiots were in fact advocating for such a curriculum.)

Really? Because gravity is no more proven than evolution is. So how are you okay with letting them teach creationism as an alternative to evolution, but you're not okay with teaching undetectable elastic strings as an alternative to gravity?

I'm not okay with teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution at all. Nor am I okay with forbidding it. I'm okay with teaching creationisms history in history classes and it's impact in social studies classes. And yes, with testing its claims in science classes.

Which as far as I am concerned is a perfectly acceptable moral reaction to being subjected to inane assumptions and generalisations.

Yes, from someone who is incapable of arguing without resorting to insults. Since you claim not to be such a person, I wonder why you're also claiming that you do resort to insults.

Because I can and feel like it. What else is there?

In other words, I personally don't give two shits about the dividing line between two occurrences that, while I can see the difference, are part of the same general occurence; developement of life. But thank you for expanding my vocabulary.

Well, then I assume you also understand the how that difference makes it clear that evolution and creationism are not "alternative viewpoints" about the same phenomenon. Creationism, like abiogenesis, is about the creation of life. Evolution is not.

Perfectly; Big Bang/abiogenesis, then evolution. I still consider them both developement, but don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the need for specifics. My personal approach just happens to be of a more holistic nature and I am a big fan of simplicity.

[Dyakovo]

Oh, but you're censoring teachers from teaching evolution. It's a controversial topic PRECISELY because there are some religious people who cannot stand the idea that their children are being taught to question the Bible out of all things.

eyeroll no doubt! i agree that christianity is the main problem, but since we cannot and should not keep people from believing whatever they want to, all we can do is keep church and state separate by not teaching creationism or any other theories on our origin. maybe an elective "origins" could be offered, but only if it also includes 'ancient aliens' theories too.

Teaching evolution does not violate the separation of church and state in any way, shape or form.

[Vault 1]

He said it straight: "IT WAS".

No, I can't easily see something that doesn't exist. He said that we teach the American side of it, since in U.S. history, that's what you're supposed to learn. Ignorant students interpret this as us winning the entire war by ourselves.

And that's enough. Most of the populace is ignorant. Out of the rest, most cave in under peer pressure and at least partially accept the popular belief.

Do the same with creationism, and you'll have most of the populace believing it. Not as in "maybe", "perhaps", "because". Believing it as both religious and scientific truth.

[The United Nations of the Earth]

holy crap that is exactly right!
[edit] but well put!

Sorry, but I'm a bit sleepy and I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or are being sarcastic.

i sort of agree but totally agree with how you stated it. i just differ in that i think neither evolution nor creationism should be taught. hee hee get some sleep soon! this type of thread will keep you up all night...

[Dyakovo]

Sorry, the few people that actually still believe in imposing theocratic ideals on others that I have met were American, so I simply assumed you were. However, secularism is a basis of many modern societies, and for a very good reason. Even many societies that still have a state church have realized how absurd imposing such beliefs on others is.

The secularism is a kind of regime. Separation of the religous matters from the state, so in the secular education theist conceptions should not be imposed on the students. But anti-theistic should be too

The Theory of evolution via Natural Selection is not anti-theistic.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Sorry, but I'm a bit sleepy and I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or are being sarcastic.

i sort of agree but totally agree with how you stated it. i just differ in that i think neither evolution nor creationism should be taught. hee hee get some sleep soon! this type of thread will keep you up all night...

Oh, ok.

Well, it's the middle of the afternoon and I ate pizza, so that might account for my sleepiness.

[Mavorpen]

He said it straight: "IT WAS".

Really? I highly doubt he believes that America won the entire war by itself. We did not, and no school teaches that unless the teacher outright ignores the curriculum.

And that's enough. Most of the populace is ignorant. Out of the rest, most cave in under peer pressure and at least partially accept the popular belief.

Do the same with creationism, and you'll have most of the populace believing it. Not as in "maybe", "perhaps", "because". Believing it as both religious and scientific truth.

Most of the populace ALREADY believe in creationism.

[Dyakovo]

I never told that creationism should be told in science lesson, we havent had a lesson called "science" at all. I told that both should be preaented by the educational system

Fair enough, evolution in Science and Creationism in Theology/RE/RS.

With the added addendum of "teach all the world's creation stories".

[Sudetanland]

I think it should.