Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Which Should Be Taught In Schools?

[Sogeking]

[Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ...

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. ...

On August 11, 1999, by a 6–4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it." This decision was hailed by creationists, and sparked a statewide and nationwide controversy with scientists condemning the change. Challengers in the state's Republican primary who made opposition to the anti-evolution standards their focus were voted in on August 1, 2000, so on February 14, 2001, the Board voted 7–3 to reinstate the teaching of biological evolution and the origin of the earth into the state's science education standards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is another interesting topic that's also something of a hot button. The Theory of Evolution is among the most controversial subjects in recorded human history. What has made it such a controversial topic is that Charles Darwin's theory suggests that mankind evolved from apes and that contradicts the Christian theology of man being created by God in his own image. And, in the United States, Christianity is the predominant religion. Even most people that don't regularly attend church services often will label themselves as simply being Christian when it comes to asking them their religious beliefs.

Most of the time Intelligent design "science" is nothing but technobabble (a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation) about religion.

Those that support the teaching of ID feel that children should be exposed to another "theory" as to how life on Earth began as Evolution hasn't been definitively proven as factual. Those that are against it feel it's religious dogma disguised as academics and is a violation of separation between church and State.
What do you think?

[PJay]

I think it was very thorough of God to go to all the trouble of burying those dragon skeletons to confuse us all.

[Amnesiac]

The only people against teaching evolution are the ones who don't fully understand it in the first place.

Any person who's read On the Origin of Species knows that evolution is a completely reasonable and easily observable natural phenomenon. Only an idiot—I'm not hesitating when I say that, ONLY AN IDIOT—would disregard it. Evolution is the basis for the entire field of biology. Teaching biology without evolution is like building a car without an engine.

[embers]

So they'd rather not teach something that is based on years of research and evidence-gathering, and is actually fact not theory, and teach something that is based solely on belief? Amusing.

Come on. Evolution, natural selection, etc is observed fact, not theory. There is no reason to say mankind was created, we evolved.

[Amnesiac]

So they'd rather not teach something that is based on years of research and evidence-gathering, and is actually fact not theory, and teach something that is based solely on belief? Amusing.

Come on. Evolution, natural selection, etc is observed fact, not theory. There is no reason to say mankind was created, we evolved.

I'd like to use your point to clarify something:

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Evolutionary theory is the "collection of concepts" that explains the natural phenomena that is evolution (which is a fact, since it's observable).

[Iceman]

Both. I believe you should be taught both and simply make the obvious decision.

[embers]

Ah, my bad.

[Perseus]

Considering intelligent design is religion, and it can make people uncomfortable and since there are multiple religions whom are not monotheistic. (I did not read that article; I have chemistry homework to do. :P) Evolution should be taught in schools since it is a scientific theory, not a religion or origin myth. It is a natural, observable phenomenon based on the theory of natural selection, which falls into genetics.

[huginnmuninn]

I'd like to use your point to clarify something:

Evolution is a fact and a theory.




Evolutionary theory is the "collection of concepts" that explains the natural phenomena that is evolution (which is a fact, since it's observable).

gravity is also a theory but they teach that in schools

[Sage]

You don't need to teach both sides if one is asinine and wrong.

[scuba steve]

You don't need to teach both sides if one is asinine and wrong.

That one is for culture studies, R.E and what not.

[Jess]

both but for intelligent design, students should be taught the basis of it, I mean, what the beliefs and stuff are but they shouldn't be forced to actually BELIEVE it's true.

in world affairs last year we learned about Buddhism and several religions and their beliefs but it was just informational

[Sage]

What good would come out of teaching intelligent design?

[scuba steve]

What good would come out of teaching intelligent design?

To teach them how to band humanity together through simple theory and fear, that way one man/group can easily control them for whenever earth enters it's new dark age after oil dries up in a couple 100 years and for some reason we weren't competent enough to perfect other energy sources.

[Amnesiac]

gravity is also a theory but they teach that in schools

And?

[Sage]

To teach them how to band humanity together through simple theory and fear, that way one man/group can easily control them for whenever earth enters it's new dark age after oil dries up in a couple 100 years and for some reason we weren't competent enough to perfect other energy sources.

You agree with me, that means you don't get to respond.

[Peace God]

They can teach Intelligent design in schools...just not in science class.
Why? Because it's not fucking science.

[Modus Operandi]

They can teach Intelligent design in schools...just not in science class.
Why? Because it's not fucking science.

Basically, this.

A science class should teach scientific concepts and theories, not hokey religious babble. However, if a student wants to take a class which educates them about different religious beliefs, possibly as part of a Social Studies curriculum, then by all means, go for it. Just leave it out of science class.

[Bluesman]

Both... teach kids both perspectives and let them decide what they believe. I can see how an argument for evolution would be made since it is more scientific, but at least throw the idea of intelligent design out there... let kids know that there is another alternative. By only teaching one, and especially only acknowledging one, we're making today's youth close-minded.

both but for intelligent design, students should be taught the basis of it, I mean, what the beliefs and stuff are but they shouldn't be forced to actually BELIEVE it's true.

in world affairs last year we learned about Buddhism and several religions and their beliefs but it was just informational

Agreed. Every other year or so we have a unit on religions... strictly informal but at least it gives you an exposure to what all's out there.

[Peace God]

Both...
Why just 2? Why forget about the thousands of other spiritual/religious creation stories from other cultures and time periods?

And what about this alternate theory from a church right here in America? (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)

teach kids both perspectives and let them decide what they believe.

Do you realize how unfair that is to children?

"Kids 1 + 1 = 2... but let's also teach controversial theory of 1 + 1 = 11. Oh don't worry Billy, you guys can decide for yourself which is right."

[Bluesman]

Why just 2? Why forget about the thousands of other spiritual/religious creation stories from other cultures and time periods?

And what about this alternate theory from a church right here in America? (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)



Do you realize how unfair that is to children?

"Kids 1 + 1 = 2... but let's also teach controversial theory of 1 + 1 = 11. Oh don't worry Billy, you guys can decide for yourself which is right."

At the very least teach the scientific theory of evolution in a science class, but still acknowledge that there are many other theories out there. Don't bring up kids thinking that there is only one possible way that life was formed, when in reality there are many different theories out there.

[Peace God]

At the very least teach the scientific theory of evolution in a science class, but still acknowledge that there are many other theories out there.
It's not a scientific theory though... why should it be acknowledged in science class if it's not science?

[Alaph]

Both.

[scuba steve]

I have a problem with religion in schools in general, alot of the time it's not taught the way it should, showing an overview of all major religions and any other pupils may take an interest in. At my school we were supposed to be Integrated (meaning it accepts all cultures, religions etc.) but still in R.E we where forced to learn about "Jesus' grand escapades, despite being told we would be learning about Budism, Sheikh, Shinto etc.

[PJay]

I have a problem with religion in schools in general, alot of the time it's not taught the way it should, showing an overview of all major religions and any other pupils may take an interest in. At my school we were supposed to be Integrated (meaning it accepts all cultures, religions etc.) but still in R.E we where forced to learn about "Jesus' grand escapades, despite being told we would be learning about Budism, Sheikh, Shinto etc.


Same here - its just brainwashing otherwise.

I actually agree with naj13567 that it is helpful to get the 'all views' thing in religious education classes where possible. But as has been pointed out very clearly, this is not the same as teaching "Intelligent Design" in a Science class as though it was a valid alternative to accepted science.

If there was anything like the equivalent amount of scientific research and consensus about ID as there is around what is taught currently then it would be valid to do so .. but the fact is that there isn't and I have a hunch there never will be.

[Magus]

but still in R.E we where forced to learn about "Jesus' grand escapades, despite being told we would be learning about Budism, Sheikh, Shinto etc.That's Sikh(See - ek-ch) - I believe.

Since I am in an Islamic country, and I am actually labeled a Muslim. I have to study about Islam in school. While those of other religion, they study what we call as "Moral Science" -- it encompasses all religions, their ethics, moral and etc.(Only showing the good in it)

[scuba steve]

That's Sikh(See - ek-ch) - I believe.



Sorry dude, I didn't learn about it you see :P

[Alaph]

"Moral Science" is a stupid term, morals have nothing to do with science.

[Magus]

"Moral Science" is a stupid term, morals have nothing to do with science.

Science:
From Webdic:

2. A particular branch of scientific knowledge

What's a Scientific Knowledge?
1. Knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles
=================
Social Science and Political Science has nothing to do with "our" science, yet you see the label "science" in them.

Also, Moral Science is another fancy term for theology and ethics.

And as per the dic. This is what gives me for theology:

1.The rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.

A systematic study - that's what "Science" actually means.

[Alaph]

Both.

Because people have the right to hear both sides, and decide for themselves what they believe.

[Peace God]

...and decide for themselves what they believe.
You're joking right?

Do you guys understand anything about education?...you can't tell people what they want to hear and then let them decide what to believe in. They will fucking fail.

[Magus]

Because people have the right to hear both sides, and decide for themselves what they believe.Evolution is a fact that is backed by up horrendous number of evidences, and Evolution itself debunks Intelligent Design. This is not a subject of belief, it is a matter of conformity.

But, it's okay to hear out Intelligent Design -- in theology classes.

[Alaph]

Evolution is a fact that is backed by up horrendous number of evidences,
Yes, although you could always argue that it's a trick, thing's are designed to look evolved.

and Evolution itself debunks Intelligent Design. This is not a subject of belief, it is a matter of conformity

No it doesn't, you could have both.

[Modus Operandi]

No it doesn't, you could have both.

Theoretically, yes. But one of the cornerstones of intelligent design (as I understand it) is that because the design was intelligent, there would be no NEED for evolution to occur at all.

[Amnesiac]

At the very least teach the scientific theory of evolution in a science class, but still acknowledge that there are many other theories out there. Don't bring up kids thinking that there is only one possible way that life was formed, when in reality there are many different theories out there.

Evolution doesn't hypothesize how life formed. It explains the diversity of life we see around us.

What an astonshing number of people here FAIL to realize is that evolution is a universally accepted scientific theory. Intelligent design IS CREATIONISM, and has been labeled as such a countless number of times by the scientific community. Evolution is the only theory that should be taught, since it has stood the test of time and is indeed an observable phenomenon.

If you don't teach evolution, you can't teach biology.

Evolution is the foundation for ALL of modern biological science. You can't just deem it equal to other theories like ID that are false religious propaganda.

[Bluesman]

Evolution doesn't hypothesize how life formed. It explains the diversity of life we see around us.

What an astonshing number of people here FAIL to realize is that evolution is a universally accepted scientific theory. Intelligent design IS CREATIONISM, and has been labeled as such a countless number of times by the scientific community. Evolution is the only theory that should be taught, since it has stood the test of time and is indeed an observable phenomenon.

If you don't teach evolution, you can't teach biology.

Evolution is the foundation for ALL of modern biological science. You can't just deem it equal to other theories like ID that are false religious propaganda.

Teach both. If you don't teach both today's youth will be closed-minded. Many of us already are... You can't teach one thing because it's what scientists like. There are many, many other beliefs out there, and if they are not even acknowledged we are practically brainwashing anyone who goes through the public school system.

[Amnesiac]

Teach both. If you don't teach both today's youth will be closed-minded. Many of us already are... You can't teach one thing because it's what scientists like. There are many, many other beliefs out there, and if they are not even acknowledged we are practically brainwashing anyone who goes through the public school system.

But it's science class, not world religions class. Science classes are for science and science only. Teaching anything else would be counter-productive, cause increased conflict, legally dubious and absurd.

In science curriculums, what the scientists like and have spent hundreds of years researching should be taught, not some ridiculous "let's shove our religion up the asses of other people's children!" 'theory' that is just propaganda in a tuxedo.

[Perseus]

Teach both. If you don't teach both today's youth will be closed-minded. Many of us already are... You can't teach one thing because it's what scientists like. There are many, many other beliefs out there, and if they are not even acknowledged we are practically brainwashing anyone who goes through the public school system.

Evolution does not state why we are here and how we got here. It states how organisms change over time and adapt to their surroundings. Evolution is not a religion. Intelligent Design implies religion. Intelligent Design does not belong in science since it is not science. It is theology. There are classes for it, but no one religion is promoted. Did you not learn this (this implying the theory of natural selection and evolution) in ninth grade?

[Sage]

You can't teach one thing because it's what scientists like.

I apologize if this sounds rude, Nick, but in a science classroom,
YES YOU FUCKING CAN.

[Camazotz]

Science should be taught in science class and religion should be taught in religious studies.

[Bluesman]

But it's science class, not world religions class. Science classes are for science and science only. Teaching anything else would be counter-productive, cause increased conflict, legally dubious and absurd.

In science curriculums, what the scientists like and have spent hundreds of years researching should be taught, not some ridiculous "let's shove our religion up the asses of other people's children!" 'theory' that is just propaganda in a tuxedo.

Well if you want to go to a scientific perspective here's a website you might want to take a look at:

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

It's a lot of reading but there's some fairly interesting scientific evidence for creationism. A little more than halfway through it there's a really good section called "Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator".

I apologize if this sounds rude, Nick, but in a science classroom,
YES YOU FUCKING CAN.

No apologies needed... take a link at the link though.

[Peace God]

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm


"Irreducible complexity" is a flawed concept...nothing is perfect and pretty much every case of creationists calling an organism "Irreducibly complex" has been disproved.

Abiogenisis ≠ Evolution. Scientists aren't even near a consensus on the origin of life..how many times must we say this?

And boy is this source biased...

The author is not a scientist...he's a minister.
And why does he keep on making it about atheists and our (and solely ours apparently) political agenda?
The website is called "creationism" for christ's sake (no pun intended).

[greekboy]

Both. I believe you should be taught both and simply make the obvious decision.

OK so compared to the massive amount of logical and sequential evidence both fossil, genetic and biochemical that explains how evolution works, what would they actually teach as EVIDENCE of creation. The fairy stories that are used to indoctrinate children, because only a child with unquestioning trust in their parents/teachers would believe this crap?

[Sage]

Well if you want to go to a scientific perspective here's a website
Creationism.org is not a reliable source on scientific evidence.

[gingeylover14]

So they'd rather not teach something that is based on years of research and evidence-gathering, and is actually fact not theory, and teach something that is based solely on belief? Amusing.

Come on. Evolution, natural selection, etc is observed fact, not theory. There is no reason to say mankind was created, we evolved.

if we evolved then what did we evolve from??? evolution is a gradual change over time often to adapt to life in a new or changing enviroment

[Amnesiac]

if we evolved then what did we evolve from??? evolution is a gradual change over time often to adapt to life in a new or changing enviroment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Also, that's not the correct definition of 'evolution'.

[Bluesman]

The author is not a scientist...he's a minister.



You do have a point... I'm searching for a good article that's less biased.

EDIT: here you go

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/scientific_evidence_gish.html

And if you people are going to give me negative rep, have the balls to sign it. I respect your opinions but I'd like to know who's giving me negative rep. And thank you Sage for signing yours.

[Magus]

You do have a point... I'm searching for a good article that's less biased.
EDIT: here you go
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/scientific_evidence_gish.html
And if you people are going to give me negative rep, have the balls to sign it. I respect your opinions but I'd like to know who's giving me negative rep. And thank you Sage for signing yours.
Less biased my ass. The whole site is a Christian propaganda.

The Laws of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that an isolated system can only become less ordered, less organized, less complex. It can never go in the reverse direction. In violation of this natural law, evolutionists believe that the Universe is an isolated system that began in the state of chaos and disorder of a primeval explosion and converted itself into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This belief is based on an unscientific, irrational faith contrary to natural law.
I love how creationist use this "Laws of thermodynamics".

primeval explosion... I laughed my ass out.

First, and during the expansion... neutrons and pro... how about I put a youtube video, and save my self the time.

Please do watch the parts. And get educated.
nFjwXe-pXvM

First and foremost, there is no such thing as incredibly complex universe. Secondly, what's that has to do with Evolution?

Thirdly nobody said that universe is an Isolated system.

Even if it is an isolated, the mass and matter remains the same, but the amount of energy enters and goes out varies. EARTH is not an isolated system - so mass and matter comes out and in out of Earth, and so does energy and wave particles.

The Laws of Probability. The average protein contains 400 amino acids of 20 different kinds arranged in precise sequence. Even 100 amino acids of 20 different kinds can be arranged in 20100 (10130) different ways. There are only 1080 particles in the entire Universe. If 100 amino acids were arranged randomly a trillion times per second for five billion years, the probability of them being arranged just once in a predetermined order is essentially nil. In order to have even the slightest possibility an evolutionary origin of life in an ocean containing 355 million cubic miles of water would require many billions of tons each of hundreds of different protein molecules and hundreds of different DNA and RNA molecules. Before the existence of life there could be no reproduction and thus no natural selection. All of this must occur by pure chance. A naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary origin of life would be impossible.
I was pissing shit from laughter.

There is an experiment called Urey-Miller's experiment. Those guy made protein and enzymes out of inorganic molecules.

Whoever wrote that never read this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).

The Fossil Record. The evolution of a single‑celled organism into all the creatures that ever lived during hundreds of millions of years would have produced an enormous number of transitional forms. Our museums should have on display vast numbers of undoubted transitional forms. But as predicted on the basis of creation there is a systematic absence of transitional forms between basically different kinds of plants and animals. For example, the fossils of a vast array of complex invertebrates ‑ clams, snails, jellyfish, trilobites, sponges, worms, brachiopods, etc. ‑ abruptly appear in the fossil record. Billions times billions of fossils are in the rocks. Nowhere on the earth has anyone found fossilized ancestors for a single one of these creatures. Each appears fully formed.
This guy probably never heard of fossil fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel). And obviously not Eutrophication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication)

And probably never seen this chart:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/animalsevolution_lg.jpeg

[Bluesman]

This is kind of irrelevant but it's almost laughable how closed-minded people are.

[Severus Snape]

I have this crazy idea regarding science classes.

Let's teach things that are scientifically proven and not based on a book written by Jews 2,000+ years ago.

[embers]

Let's teach things that are scientifically proven and not based on a book written by Jews 2,000+ years ago.

Are you implying that it being written by Jews further decreases its credibility?

[Severus Snape]

Are you implying that it being written by Jews further decreases its credibility?

Of course not. It could have been written by Greeks, Romans, Persians, Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Akkadians, Nubians, Gallic peoples, or members of the Averni tribe. That doesn't change the fact it was written by a people with a very limited understanding of the natural world who had a reliance on supernatural explanations. 2000 years later we are well past that.

We should not base science classes on any culture's or religion's book of mystical sorcery.

[Perseus]

This is kind of irrelevant but it's almost laughable how closed-minded people are.

I love how you have not addressed any points made by anybody and then just start spewing biased websites at us. Go read about the theory of evolution and natural selection because you obviously have no understanding of this at all. If you did, you would understand, as many people and I have said, that it involves genetics. So if you're gonna debate, debate right, not like every other Christian on this website who tries to debate evolution and never brings valid points, but instead comments on what they want and bring in biased, incorrect information to the table. Now, either do that (that implying debating correctly and bring unbiased information to the table, before you twist my words) or gtfo.

[Bluesman]

I love how you have not addressed any points made by anybody and then just start spewing biased websites at us. Go read about the theory of evolution and natural selection because you obviously have no understanding of this at all. If you did, you would understand, as many people and I have said, that it involves genetics. So if you're gonna debate, debate right, not like every other Christian on this website who tries to debate evolution and never brings valid points, but instead comments on what they want and bring in biased, incorrect information to the table. Now, either do that (that implying debating correctly and bring unbiased information to the table, before you twist my words) or gtfo.

From what you're saying, any websites that are about Creationism are Christian, so it's pointless to give you any information, because you will not consider it valid. I have read about evolution and natural selection, because that is all that is taught in schools...

Since you refuse to accept evidence for creationism, here is some merely against macroevolution. Without macroevolution evolution would not be possible. Please do not say that it is biased, because creationism is not even mentioned.


There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant.

[Perseus]

From what you're saying, any websites that are about Creationism are Christian, so it's pointless to give you any information, because you will not consider it valid. I have read about evolution and natural selection, because that is all that is taught in schools...

Since you refuse to accept evidence for creationism, here is some merely against macroevolution. Without macroevolution evolution would not be possible. Please do not say that it is biased, because creationism is not even mentioned.

First off, I did not say that, but you're getting information off of biased pastors, etc. who refuse to believe in evolution and make stuff up and talk about stuff they have no idea about. Second off, I doubt that. And third off, this destroys that entire argument that you presented that was not cited (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece).

And also, there is something else I'm looking for where a scientist, prior to this incident of which I just linked, created life, though I can't find it.

Also, The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy), usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[12] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Macroevolution_and_the_modern_evolutionary_synthesis
Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#cite_note-14)] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#cite_note-talkorigins-4)][14] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[15] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)".[16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#cite_note-15)][17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#cite_note-EvolutionFact-16)]

[darkwoon]

I think I need to answer this...
From what you're saying, any websites that are about Creationism are Christian, so it's pointless to give you any information, because you will not consider it valid. I have read about evolution and natural selection, because that is all that is taught in schools...

Since you refuse to accept evidence for creationism, here is some merely against macroevolution. Without macroevolution evolution would not be possible. Please do not say that it is biased, because creationism is not even mentioned.
You are making a very common mistake when comparing Creationism and the theories of evolution (notice the plural to theories):

Creationism is not based on a scientifical process. The theories of evolution - the serious ones - are.

This has nothing to do with Creationism being promoted by religious people, in fact. Would it be promoted by Einstein or Bohr themselves wouldn't change its non-science status. The central issue is very simple:

there is no way to show that Creationism is not true by any physical, reproducible mean.

This is the base axiom for anything claiming to be "science": you can imagine a way to disprove it. Of course, it doesn't mean you have the technology or the technical skills to be able to disprove them right away, but you can at least make a theory that, if demonstrated, would do the job.

You can imagine ways to disprove any point of any theory of evolution. Again, you may not have evidence in hands, but it is not necessary - if you can say: "If I can find a case of X, X being physically measurable, then the point of the theory will be proven wrong", it is sufficient.

On the other hand, you cannot disprove Creationism (or, for what matters, Intelligent Design). Why? Because the basic premise of Creationism is that an external creator made life on Earth. How to disprove it? By showing that the initial creator did not exist. How can you disprove that by physical means? You can't - just as you can't disprove the existence of God.

Should Creationism or Intelligent Design be taught in science classes? Unless they can be proven to match the basic rule of "disproval allowed", no, as they are not scientifical theories, but philosophical postulates.

[PJay]

This is kind of irrelevant but it's almost laughable how closed-minded people are.

Pot, kettle, maybe?

I think you are doing a useful job of challenging stuff that we just accept which I'm finding educational, but honestly I think you aren't thinking enough yourself.

[Fushigi]

i think both so there is a balance :D

[Korashk]

Since you refuse to accept evidence for creationism,
No; no no no no; no. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence FOR creationism. If there was most here would probably at least give the concept some validity. It's discoverer would win a Nobel Prize. No, what people claim is "evidence" for creationism is nothing of the sort.

here is some merely against macroevolution.
Macroevolution is microevolution + time. Other than the amount of time it takes to happen the two are identical processes. If microevolution happens then so does macroevolution.

[Korashk]

i think both so there is a balance :D
Okay kids, today we're going to learn about the holocaust, but before we do that I have to say that according to some people it didn't ever happen.

[Cosmic]

I won't say too much on the topic... the argument has been pretty exhausted, but I will agree that IF we are to teach both, they should be done within their respective subject areas.

I would like to argue that Creationism, and religion in general, due to it's lacking in any substantive evidence, is in fact not worth being taught at all - however I recognise that that is an impractical argument purely on the level of social cohesion. The importance of religious education, as far as I can tell, is that of tolerance - so I will support it's teachings within a religious education setting.

Furthermore, I would argue that what is true, isn't what's important, purely on an individual level. Sometimes religion gives people purpose that they'd otherwise lose, and provided it is not used maliciously against other people, I see no harm in it's existence or it's being taught.

[Fushigi]

Okay kids, today we're going to learn about the holocaust, but before we do that I have to say that according to some people it didn't ever happen.

lol i didnt mean it that way... :D

[Korashk]

lol i didnt mean it that way... :D
I was trying to make a point. Just because there are notions about a phenomenon that are contrary to the main explanation does not mean that those notions should be given the time of day.

[benjininja]

uhm, i'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but may i point out that nothing in evolution says that the genes of one monkey are changing over a long period of time to turn into human genes
what evolution theories basically say, is that if monkey A is more likely to survive than monkey B because of X reason, then monkey A will have babies and monkey B will not, resulting in more monkeys with reason X, who will have more babies than the possible offspring of other monkeys without reason X, meaning there will be more monkeys with a favorable trait, and then out of those monkeys, let's say the children of monkey A are monkeys C, D, and E, out of these monkeys, monkey C has trait Y that allows him to survive this or that, meaning he will have more babies than the other monkeys. These babies will carry both traits X and Y, and will be more abundant than the other monkeys because they naturally are more likely to survive.
the people who say "well, DNA is complicated" are simply proving the point. DNA can change from parent to child. proof: down's syndrome. The parents didn't just have it and give it to the children, something happened to the DNA in the process that caused it to change, or "mutate"
these mutations can be bad *or* good, but the good ones get almost no scientific attention because they pose no threat to humanity.
if a parent passes on a good trait to a child, or even a mutation that allows the child to, i don't know, metabolize oxygen into the system faster, the child *may* be more likely to have children than another child who does the same thing but slower.
Since they say that every single human being on earth right now is related to something like 100 people from only 200,000 years ago, it's easy to see that even 1 trait in 1 person can be exploded into millions (or billions) of people in a matter of only 200,000 years, which is really REALLY fast, considering the amount of time life has existed on Earth.

[Magus]

uhm, i'm.... Earth.
It's called a pedigree chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Autosomal_Recessive_Pedigree_Chart_.svg/600px-Autosomal_Recessive_Pedigree_Chart_.svg.png
Exactly.

If microevolution happens then so does macroevolution.A set of microevolution is macroevolution, this is what happened in an earlier taxonomic level in which it branched into lower taxonomic level. Got me so far?

[gbboone]

Lets teach neither. Rather than learning about the past, we should be teaching science that will help humanity. Physics is much more important than learning what lived during the Cambrian period.

[Korashk]

Lets teach neither. Rather than learning about the past, we should be teaching science that will help humanity. Physics is much more important than learning what lived during the Cambrian period.
facepalm.jpg

[Amnesiac]

Lets teach neither. Rather than learning about the past, we should be teaching science that will help humanity. Physics is much more important than learning what lived during the Cambrian period.

In order to understand biology, you need to understand evolution. Biology is one of the leading sciences – none of the medical breakthroughs of the last 150 years would have happened without it. Also, evolution is critical to understand for those involved in animal husbandry and agriculture.

[Advanced A]

I think it should be up to the parents, e.g different schools like there are now..

Religious schools or non religious schools. but it should be taught to respect each human being no matter what their beliefs.

And, its kinda strange the option is god or evolution, like if you picked to teach about god.. which one do you choose to teach about?

Which ones the right god? :p

[Jess]

up to the parents? what if the children disagree?

[Peace God]

I think it should be up to the parents, e.g different schools like there are now..

Religious schools or non religious schools. but it should be taught to respect each human being no matter what their beliefs.

And, its kinda strange the option is god or evolution, like if you picked to teach about god.. which one do you choose to teach about?

Which ones the right god? :p


"God" isn't science.
Evolution isn't "God".
and "God" has no place in America public schools.

[Triceratops]

I don't think either one should not be taught schools. Kids should learn to make up their own minds on what to believe.

I'm all for schools teaching about different types of religions in order for kids to recieve an understanding on different cultures and philosophies. I just think that schools focus too much attention on Chrisitianity as the key religion, and that kind of brainwashes kids or makes them want to go against it even more.

[Advanced A]

No one knows for sure, and as a parent they have the rights to choose at the start.
Religion is something sooner or later most people look at themselves and decide on their own, sure some people are bible bashed or whatever it is into believeing. But i imagine it goes both ways, I know some athiests bash people into believing theres no god.

I personally would find it hard and cruel to be left to decide by your own at the age of.. whatever you think it should be for deciding.. be it under 10 or over.

At least if the parents choose for them, then they can be brought up with that opinion for the start then make their own later in life..
How many of you have done so and are happy with that?

[Minimoose]

Why should they need to teach ID in schools? The kids should already know from their parents and just general knowledge etc. I know that's how I learnt about it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Amnesiac]

Why should they need to teach ID in schools? The kids should already know from their parents and just general knowledge etc. I know that's how I learnt about it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES feel they need to force their personal beliefs on other people's children.

That's what this entire debate on evolution vs. creationism (ID is creationism, and I'm not substituting that term for it) boils down to. Filthy, anti-human, brainless, big-government social conservatives and their disgusting and invasive 'values'.

[Sogeking]

Filthy, anti-human, brainless, big-government social conservatives and their disgusting and invasive 'values'. Replace the word conservative with liberal and thats what the other side of the spectrum thinks about you guys lol.