Evolution in Schools

[Parhe]

And yes, all creation myths should be taught, but like I said, creation myths should not be taught as fact, especially since despite having nothing against the idea that a God could have created organisms that evolved, that, like you said, has no proof for it. I give much more weight to evolution then to creationism, but I still support teaching both.

Science does not teach that which has no proof. If creation myths want to be taught, then they need proof for them. Teaching them to make things "fair" is idiotic, as that is not how science works. To allow creation myths with no proof tramples all over the scientific method.

I do not think you should spend time discussing all creation myths in a class devoted to science. I merely believe they should be taught as a theory, i do not care where(lie, I do, somewhere it is somewhat related), history, literature, but you pointed out, and I agreed, that creationism has no proof for it, so it shouldn't be taught in a class such as science. But I said it still should be taught as a theory

Also, one thing, I am not calling science a belief system. I merely said to let people choose what they believe. I chose to believe that the sun does not have an unlimited amount of energy, but I do not know many people who would call that a belief system.

It isn't a belief if you can prove it to be true.

But can you prove that certain species have a recent common ancestor just because they have certain characteristics. It could be a possibility that they have a common ancestor, as I believe all organisms on the planet do, but not what would be called recent, however you would define that time frame.

[The Merchant Republics]

That fact being what? That species adapt and change to their environments? I suppose yes.

Mhmm. The fact being evolution.

I figured that's what you were getting at. Are you adamant that I call it a fact. Well, yes. I believe in intelligently-guided evolution.

And I think it needs to be taught in school. (and any mention of an ID is not necessary to include).

[Norstal]

I know that the majority of NS believes in evolution, though one thing that I have wondered is about what your beliefs are about how it should be presented in schools. Should evolution be continued to be taught as a theory, a fact, or for those few on the site that don't believe in it, not at all. Also, should creationism and inteligent design be taught alongside it as possible alternatives, not taught at all, or be taught in world religions or history classes. Personally I believe that calling evolution a theory is outdated and that it should by this point by taught as scientific fact, though I believe alternate theories should be taught in world religions classes, history classes, and the like. What are your thoughts.

Oh my god. I swear to god. I'm going to fucking choke the lot of you who thinks theories are not facts.

[Norstal]

I do not think you should spend time discussing all creation myths in a class devoted to science. I merely believe they should be taught as a theory, i do not care where(lie, I do, somewhere it is somewhat related), history, literature, but you pointed out, and I agreed, that creationism has no proof for it, so it shouldn't be taught in a class such as science. But I said it still should be taught as a theory

How is creationism falsifiable?

And by theory of course, you mean hypothesis.

[Parhe]

...has enough of an impact on society or a large enough following.

As some have pointed out, science is not a democracy or majority rule.

But I would not spend educating student about possibilities that have no proof and does not at all affect the world, or at least in a large enough way.
Like Creationism, they have no proof, so they should be taught in a different class somewhat related to the topic if enough people are willing to learn about a subject such as the ones listed.

[Ceannairceach]

But I said it still should be taught as a theory

But it isn't a theory. To name it such is an insult to actual scientific theories.

But can you prove that certain species have a recent common ancestor just because they have certain characteristics. It could be a possibility that they have a common ancestor, as I believe all organisms on the planet do, but not what would be called recent, however you would define that time frame.

No one said "recent". We have proof, by studying the anatomy and genetics and what have you of several species, of common ancestry between animals. This said, macroevolution is not a separate entity from microevolution. They are the exact. Same. Thing. The only difference, as has been pointed out, is time. What is called microevolution, over time, will lead to what is called a macroevolution. One shouldn't be taught as lesser or possibly untrue when they are one in the same.

[Norstal]

As some have pointed out, science is not a democracy or majority rule.

But I would not spend educating student about possibilities that have no proof and does not at all affect the world, or at least in a large enough way.

It has proof. Stop being ignorant.

Like Creationism, they have no proof, so they should be taught in a different class somewhat related to the topic if enough people are willing to learn about a subject such as the ones listed.

Why can't they just go to a church or some shit?

[Parhe]

I do not think you should spend time discussing all creation myths in a class devoted to science. I merely believe they should be taught as a theory, i do not care where(lie, I do, somewhere it is somewhat related), history, literature, but you pointed out, and I agreed, that creationism has no proof for it, so it shouldn't be taught in a class such as science. But I said it still should be taught as a theory

How is creationism falsifiable?

And by theory of course, you mean hypothesis.

I myself do not believe Creationism is falsifiable, but my only proof against Creationism that I can think of is evolution. For one, some people have adapted Creationism is allow for evolution(I think ID is one, but I am not sure), and others blankly just do not take that as evidence. However, Creationism does seems to have some impact on the world, and there also seems to be a number of people interested in the subject, whether they believe it or not, so I support it being taught(again, definitely not as fact).

[Norstal]

As to your first point, why? There is little difference between the two. It was simply created to attempt to disprove a part of evolution.

Actually, it was created by a biologist to make it easier to determine speciation or something like that. Kinda backfired since it's misused a lot.

[Norstal]

How is creationism falsifiable?

And by theory of course, you mean hypothesis.

I myself do not believe Creationism is falsifiable, but my only proof against Creationism that I can think of is evolution.

Or the nonexistence of a god.

For one, some people have adapted Creationism is allow for evolution(I think ID is one, but I am not sure), and others blankly just do not take that as evidence. However, Creationism does seems to have some impact on the world, and there also seems to be a number of people interested in the subject, whether they believe it or not, so I support it being taught(again, definitely not as fact).

What kind of impact?

[Parhe]

But I would not spend educating student about possibilities that have no proof and does not at all affect the world, or at least in a large enough way.

It has proof. Stop being ignorant.

Like Creationism, they have no proof, so they should be taught in a different class somewhat related to the topic if enough people are willing to learn about a subject such as the ones listed.

Why can't they just go to a church or some shit?

I'm not talking about evolution, which has a lot of proof. I was talking about this post.

Second, I believe in presenting people, especially students, with the option of choosing their own beliefs from a group, as long as there is no evidence against that theory.

What an utterly stupid standard. Do you have any evidence that the world was not forged by a partially sentient race of space worms? Any evidence that the universe isn't a turn from some extra-universal asshole? Any evidence that reality doesn't persist because I jack off regularly?

Please do not tell me you think these have proof.

Also, Church is overly biased in this subject, I would rather like to learn from a none biased source.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

As a scientific fact.

[Keronians]

I know that the majority of NS believes in evolution, though one thing that I have wondered is about what your beliefs are about how it should be presented in schools. Should evolution be continued to be taught as a theory, a fact, or for those few on the site that don't believe in it, not at all. Also, should creationism and inteligent design be taught alongside it as possible alternatives, not taught at all, or be taught in world religions or history classes. Personally I believe that calling evolution a theory is outdated and that it should by this point by taught as scientific fact, though I believe alternate theories should be taught in world religions classes, history classes, and the like. What are your thoughts.

Do you know what a scientific theory is? It's something which seeks to explain a fact.

Evolution occurs. This is not deniable. This is a fact.

The only thing which could perhaps change is that it doesn't occur via natural selection.

[The Merchant Republics]

Like Creationism, they have no proof, so they should be taught in a different class somewhat related to the topic if enough people are willing to learn about a subject such as the ones listed.

Why can't they just go to a church or some shit?

Christians go to church?

That's too far Norstal, you can't honestly expect us to actually go to a church to learn about our beliefs. I suppose next you'll say we should "read the Bible"?

You monster you. If it weren't for my school forcing me to learn about how Jesus created the dinosaurs in 7 days to kill the Pharaoh and save the Jews from building Noah's Ark, I'd know nothing about my faith.

[Andonam]

You can only fairly teach creationism if you give EVERY SINGLE creationist "theory" on the planet. As there are thousands of them, focusing on the Judo-Christian one would be favoratism of a religion, and therefore is not allowed in public schools. Evolution is a theory, yes, but a very well supported one, like Gravity. It has to be called a theory because science must take into account the possablity of a better explanation coming along in the future.

[Parhe]

But I said it still should be taught as a theory

But it isn't a theory. To name it such is an insult to actual scientific theories.

But can you prove that certain species have a recent common ancestor just because they have certain characteristics. It could be a possibility that they have a common ancestor, as I believe all organisms on the planet do, but not what would be called recent, however you would define that time frame.

No one said "recent". We have proof, by studying the anatomy and genetics and what have you of several species, of common ancestry between animals. This said, macroevolution is not a separate entity from microevolution. They are the exact. Same. Thing. The only difference, as has been pointed out, is time. What is called microevolution, over time, will lead to what is called a macroevolution. One shouldn't be taught as lesser or possibly untrue when they are one in the same.

Fine, do not call Creationism a theory, I do not care exactly what it is called.

But couldn't it be possible that anatomy and genetics similarities are coincidences. Other animals that could have entirely died out. Again, as I said over and over, I know only differences are the time, and that they both occur. I said my only problem is when people act as if it is 100% that one evolved directly from another, when similarities could, unlikely, be by luck and coincidence.

[Norstal]

Why can't they just go to a church or some shit?

Christians go to church?

That's too far Norstal, you can't honestly expect us to actually go to a church to learn about our beliefs. I suppose next you'll say we should "read the Bible"?

You monster you. If it weren't for my school forcing me to learn about how Jesus created the dinosaurs in 7 days to kill the Pharaoh and save the Jews from building Noah's Ark, I'd know nothing about my faith.

What? We atheists go to Richard Dawkins' house every Saturday. it isn't that hard, considering our god is still alive and provides us with millions of dollars whenever we pray to him. Hmph!

[Ifreann]

What an utterly stupid standard. Do you have any evidence that the world was not forged by a partially sentient race of space worms? Any evidence that the universe isn't a turn from some extra-universal asshole? Any evidence that reality doesn't persist because I jack off regularly?

I have no evidence against any of those. But I would only advocate teaching it to students as a theory if, for one, it was relevant(which some, like the last one is not), or, second, has enough of an impact on society or a large enough following.

Further proof that you really have no idea what a theory is in a scientific context.

[Parhe]

I have no evidence against any of those. But I would only advocate teaching it to students as a theory if, for one, it was relevant(which some, like the last one is not), or, second, has enough of an impact on society or a large enough following.

Further proof that you really have no idea what a theory is in a scientific context.

I never called any of them theories or discussed the possibilities of them being a theory, because they are not theories. Only crazy suggestions presented to me. I only discussed the education of the ideas to students, which, again, has no reason to be a theory.

[Farnhamia]

But it isn't a theory. To name it such is an insult to actual scientific theories.

No one said "recent". We have proof, by studying the anatomy and genetics and what have you of several species, of common ancestry between animals. This said, macroevolution is not a separate entity from microevolution. They are the exact. Same. Thing. The only difference, as has been pointed out, is time. What is called microevolution, over time, will lead to what is called a macroevolution. One shouldn't be taught as lesser or possibly untrue when they are one in the same.

Fine, do not call Creationism a theory, I do not care exactly what it is called.

But couldn't it be possible that anatomy and genetics similarities are coincidences. Other animals that could have entirely died out. Again, as I said over and over, I know only differences are the time, and that they both occur. I said my only problem is when people act as if it is 100% that one evolved directly from another, when similarities could, unlikely, be by luck and coincidence.

The chances of coincidence causing all the evolutionary change we've seen are so small as to be negligible. Evolution is a fact, backed up by tons (literally) of evidence. The Theory of Evolution is just how we explain the evidence. It is a simpler, cleaner explanation than having a being who exists outside space and time, and who created both, creating and guiding life personally, which is what creationism is. Intelligent Design is just creationism dressed up in a lab coat.

Teaching kids creationism as if it had scientific validity is a disservice to them.

[AiliailiA]

I know that the majority of NS believes in evolution, though one thing that I have wondered is about what your beliefs are about how it should be presented in schools. Should evolution be continued to be taught as a theory, a fact, or for those few on the site that don't believe in it, not at all. Also, should creationism and inteligent design be taught alongside it as possible alternatives, not taught at all, or be taught in world religions or history classes. Personally I believe that calling evolution a theory is outdated and that it should by this point by taught as scientific fact, though I believe alternate theories should be taught in world religions classes, history classes, and the like. What are your thoughts.

I think a scientific approach should be taught from a very young age. With the possible exception of the common language, every subject should be taught in a way which encourages students to question as the primary method of gaining knowledge. "Why?" is the most common question of small children, but after being "taught" ten years or more of right answers they leave school baldly asserting things they don't believe because they have never been persuaded of them. And of course it isn't just the influence of school which makes them that way, they are bombarded with assertions which they cannot question (try talking back to a TV or a DVD ... it won't answer your questions).

[/rant]

Creationism should not be taught in science class, because it lacks a foundation in more and more simple answers, as science does. For every scientific assertion, there is a pyramid of explanations leading right down to things the child can test for themselves. Science can be built up from observation, Creationism cannot.

There is a kind of faith in science too. Even the most accomplished polymath cannot claim to have done every experiment themselves that their belief is ultimately based on. Nor to have done every calculation from the data to the hypothesis nor to have thought through every possible refutation. Perhaps only in mathematics can anyone claim that, but mathematics isn't exactly science (it's a kind of a priori science, very rigorous but proceeding from assumptions). To believe in a scientific fact is to have faith in the thinking of other people, and it differs fundamentally from religious belief because any one detail of that knowledge can be verified by the believer is they put in enough effort to find it out. And they should, too, because this examination of assumptions and rechecking of what other people have thought is what advances science.

The faith of science is faith in other people's thinking. The faith of creationism is faith in other people's statements.

Science stands up to my thinking and provides answers to every question. Or if my thinking is strong and well-informed, science may yield to it: I can change it if I have found a logical fault in it, or can ask a question which can only be answered by experiment and the experiment casts doubt on the answer science gives. Science is persuasive. It can (though even a scientist would admit, very rarely) be persuaded.

Creationism does nothing like that. It's a bunch of tired old arguments that have never been won, probably cannot be won, and persist only because they cannot be disproved. Creationism is a philosophical argument at best, and has nothing to do with science.

[Capivara Group]

What an utterly stupid standard. Do you have any evidence that the world was not forged by a partially sentient race of space worms? Any evidence that the universe isn't a turd from some extra-universal asshole? Any evidence that reality doesn't persist because I jack off regularly?

Please do not tell me you think these have proof.

As much proof as the cdesign proponentsist "theory". Therefore, either all should be taught or none, according to your standard.

But couldn't it be possible that anatomy and genetics similarities are coincidences. Other animals that could have entirely died out. Again, as I said over and over, I know only differences are the time, and that they both occur. I said my only problem is when people act as if it is 100% that one evolved directly from another, when similarities could, unlikely, be by luck and coincidence.

That explaaaaaains everything!

Not.

[Parhe]

Fine, do not call Creationism a theory, I do not care exactly what it is called.

But couldn't it be possible that anatomy and genetics similarities are coincidences. Other animals that could have entirely died out. Again, as I said over and over, I know only differences are the time, and that they both occur. I said my only problem is when people act as if it is 100% that one evolved directly from another, when similarities could, unlikely, be by luck and coincidence.

The chances of coincidence causing all the evolutionary change we've seen are so small as to be negligible. Evolution is a fact, backed up by tons (literally) of evidence. The Theory of Evolution is just how we explain the evidence. It is a simpler, cleaner explanation than having a being who exists outside space and time, and who created both, creating and guiding life personally, which is what creationism is. Intelligent Design is just creationism dressed up in a lab coat.

So we agree, evolution is a fact and there is a very small chance of wrongs(can't think of the word, but hope you get the idea).

[Arborlawn]

Creationism is a fact.

[The Merchant Republics]

Christians go to church?

That's too far Norstal, you can't honestly expect us to actually go to a church to learn about our beliefs. I suppose next you'll say we should "read the Bible"?

You monster you. If it weren't for my school forcing me to learn about how Jesus created the dinosaurs in 7 days to kill the Pharaoh and save the Jews from building Noah's Ark, I'd know nothing about my faith.

What? We atheists go to Richard Dawkins' house every Saturday. it isn't that hard, considering our god is still alive and provides us with millions of dollars whenever we pray to him. Hmph!

I knew it! I knew it!

Someone call the Vatican and the Opus Dei, and the head of the WBC, I've got proof, Richard Dawkins is their God!

If we get rid of him that'll surely be the end of Atheism! I hope I get a reward for this.... 30 pieces of silver maybe.