Should the Theory of Evolution be compulsory in schools?

[Skillet]

What are your opinions? Should we be open to more viewpoints? What do you want your children to learn? Discuss.

 

[Skillet]

Theoretically speaking, if you had the choice.

 

[Skillet]

Some people are just so pro creation, as some are pro evolution. Is there one that should be taught more dominantly? Should it be equal?

 

[DrLeftover]

When you start to look at some of the other theories, some of which have some good points to make, both creation and evolution start to look a bit thin around the edges.



For starters you can check out some of Zecharia Sitchin writings and the ideas put out by [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Immanuel Velikovsky

 

[Evil Eye]

Kids should (and do over here) learn about evolution in biology.

Creationism is a part of religious education and possibly civics.

Both have their place. Mucking them up because you want to enforce your beliefs on someone is just wrong.

 

[The Dragon Master]

There should be both options, and the kids choose. Or both. No point stunting the child's education in one area or the other.

 

[Evil Eye]

Each is a belief, not scientific fact.

Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process. The concept has withstood

extensive testing by tens of thousands of specialists in biology, medicine, anthropology,

geology, chemistry, and other fields. Discoveries in different fields have reinforced one another,

and evidence for evolution has continued to accumulate for 150 years.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

Science has no facts. Only things that have worked so far and probably will continue to work in the future.

What you can't prove (without a time machine) is whether or not we and various creatures around us have evolved, or whether they were created by something else.

What you can prove is change over time that is transmitted to the next generation. Simply take a bunch of bacteria and start poisoning them. Slowly. After a while they'll all be immune (because the others died of course).

 

[Fatal Dawn]

I think some schools are forced to make evolutionism compulsory. People would be out for blood and the school board would light them up for it. Depending on how it is taught I can see how Creationism could go against the freedom from establishment cause. Because it is promoting one religious view (Christianity). What is wrong with parents teaching their own kids the creationism theory if they want while the evolution theory is taught in schools?

 

[DrLeftover]

You know, I've been thinking about this.... yeah, I know, that's a bad thing to do. But.





I'd be happier if they just taught readin' and writen', and 'rithmatic and let all this other crap go.

 

[Phazite]

Since no explanation can be proven without a doubt, they should all be considered, and taught to children for them to come to their own conclusions while they grow.

What should be ALLOWED is for everyone to learn as much as they can about every theory. Each is a belief, not scientific fact.

Of course children should be taught to think and exposed to a variety of ideas and they should come to their own conclusions. However, science should be taught in science class. Evolution can be demonstrated to be true. Evolution is a theory, and it is a fact.

http://www.nap.edu/c...record_id=11876

Science has no facts. Only things that have worked so far and probably will continue to work in the future.

What you can't prove (without a time machine) is whether or not we and various creatures around us have evolved, or whether they were created by something else.

There is no absolute certainty in science, but there are still facts.

a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation [1]



We can read the genetic code of organisms to determine when two organisms last shared a common ancestor. Certainly, a creator could have simply made it appear that the two organisms are related, but there's no evidence to suggest that this is the case. The intelligent designer explanation is a superfluous one that cannot even be falsified. That which explains everything tends to explain nothing.

 

[Evil Eye]

But, Leftover, shouldn't kids learn biology and such in secondary school? After all, it's what you base your decision on what you want to study on.

There is no absolute certainty in science, but there are still facts.

a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation [1]

Well all right. But given that no one is objective and you cannot be sure that whatever you're observing doesn't cause you to hallucinate something different, fact should be next to impossible to ascertain. (Don't take this too seriously now. It's a rather iffy hypothesis.)

 

[Phazite]

Well all right. But given that no one is objective and you cannot be sure that whatever you're observing doesn't cause you to hallucinate something different, fact should be next to impossible to ascertain. (Don't take this too seriously now. It's a rather iffy hypothesis.)

The thing is, we can never be absolutely certain about measurements, which is what I think you are getting at. In scientific papers, data is quoted with its corresponding uncertainty or error. As a consequence, in science, fact takes on a slightly different meaning. It's a fact that objects with mass attract to each other. This is a fact because it can be verified to occur very consistently. People aren't completely objective, but that is why the scientific method is used. It is the best method available to determine whether something is true or not. The point I'm trying to make is that classically, the word fact meaning something is the case, which is the way you are using it, isn't quite the same as the meaning in science (which I would say is more cautious) due to the realization that uncertainty exists.



Yeah, I realize that is probably not an idea that is central to your belief system and all that, but I wanted to clear up what I meant as well.



Also (sorry to be a pest) the word hypothesis isn't really the correct word to use there... but eh.

 

[Skillet]

A fact? No, I don't think so. Evolution is not proveable beyond all question. Just as crreationism isn't. Show me the missing link, then I will believe in evolution.

Even in this forum, we can see people think differently. This is why I think students should learn both in an unbiased environment. Of course this is sometimes impossible, but at least it gives the students the opportunity to pick what they believe for themselves.

 

[Evil Eye]

Well, nothing it provable beyond all question, Smooth. Anyone can ask a question after all.

But I have to ask, are you just thinking human evolution?

Also (sorry to be a pest) the word hypothesis isn't really the correct word to use there... but eh.

Yeah, I know. Was at bit of a loss there

Anyway, you got what I was saying. I don't let it bug me simply because I'd never get anything done.

 

[DrLeftover]

My point was that the schools should engage in TEACHING instead of political indoctrination.

 

[Phazite]

A fact? No, I don't think so. Evolution is not proveable beyond all question. Just as crreationism isn't. Show me the missing link, then I will believe in evolution.

Nothing is provable beyond all question. That doesn't prevent anything from having the status of fact. This is related to the uncertainty that I spoke of in my previous two posts.



As for the missing link, this is something that is heavily misunderstood by most people. It is popular to think of there being a simple missing link between human and its parent species. What you're really asking for are transitional fossils, of which there are many.

Yeah, I know. Was at bit of a loss there

Anyway, you got what I was saying. I don't let it bug me simply because I'd never get anything done.

Yeah, that's me too. When I can't think of what to say I must settle with what I can think of.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

I think both theories have some truth to them. I personally believe in this popular theory that combines a bit of both evolutionism and creationism:

http://en.wikipedia....tochondrial_Eve



There's actually research being done into subject. They are even finding evidence to prove Noah's Ark.



The thing is I don't feel evolutionism should be compulsory. As I said before, it works well the way it is now. Parents can just teach their children about evolutionism.

 

[Evil Eye]

My point was that the schools should engage in TEACHING instead of political indoctrination.

Oh yes, that would be nice.

http://en.wikipedia....tochondrial_Eve

I like how there's also an Adam to go with that one. Of course the guy was probably a serial rapist or something, but still.

 

[Cranos]

In order to have a good, basic education you need to learn the evolution theory. Deciding to teach only one explanation is in my opinion trying to indoctrinate the kids into that one belief.



Also, I've heard too many religious people talking about the evolution theory without understanding what it really is. So annoying...

 

[Phazite]

I think both theories have some truth to them. I personally believe in this popular theory that combines a bit of both evolutionism and creationism:

http://en.wikipedia....tochondrial_Eve



There's actually research being done into subject. They are even finding evidence to prove Noah's Ark.



The thing is I don't feel evolutionism should be compulsory. As I said before, it works well the way it is now. Parents can just teach their children about evolutionism.

Mitochondrial Eve doesn't actually have anything to do with creationism. It is just a term given to the most recent female common ancestor of all humans.



Noah's Ark, on the other hand, also doesn't have anything to do with this. There are always people trying to find Noah's Ark or evidence of a global flood, and thus far there isn't any that survives scrutiny. But that's another topic.



I'm not sure if I stated my take on the question of the topic yet, so I'll do that. It is important for everyone to understand what the theory of evolution is, and therefore it should be taught in school (biology). This doesn't mean that all the students have to believe it's true. Atomic theory is necessary to be taught in chemistry or the theory of gravitation in physics, but it's up to the student to think about its validity and ask questions.