Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Nitack]

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'?

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct.

 

Not knowing which theory is correct does not preclude you from determining which ones are wrong...

[InfiniteNow]

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

 

Why aren't you asking "since amphibians evolved from fish, why are there still fish?"

 

Review sources like these below. They will help you to get a better understanding of the issues you seem to be struggling with:

 

 

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions - Section A

 

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions - Section B

 

 

:cup:

[Moontanman]

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'? Doesn't the study of history show that we seldom get anything right?

 

To say intelligent design is wrong is to also declare that any actual causal theory that might mimic intelligent design is also wrong. If life isn't an accident, then it is driven into existence by forces that we don't yet understand.

 

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct. And aren't there things about 'evolution' that don't make sense? Originally, our understanding of the history of life was thought to be a nice, gradual and ordered series of events. Then it was found that cataclysmic events have played a role and that cast doubt on the nice gradual theory.

 

Why do we assume that now we have it right? Why the insistence on the mirage of certainty?

 

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

 

I had to restrain myself from answering this in an insulting manner. This question comes up all the time from creationists and it is always nonsensical. How can I make you see this? If you are decended from Europeans why are there still Europeans? No probably not obvious enough. Just because humans and apes share common ancestors has nothing to do with who is still alive and who's not. But even that answer isn't completely true since even if we were directly descended from, oh say orangutans, why would it be necessary for all orangutans to be dead? If one population of orangutans changed over eons to become humans why couldn't there still be orangutans that didn't evolve? Still not obvious enough? I'll say it straight tout, there is no reason for a population of animals to become extinct just because some of them changed enough to become a new species. You are assuming that a change like that takes place all at once on the entire population. Evolution is not a ladder of ascent, it a a tree with many branches, some longer than others. At one time there were many different species of hominids alive, all of them had a common ancestor in the line of apes. whether or not this ape ancestor is still alive or not isn't known but it is suspected that the modern great apes are side limbs on the tree of life and not directly ancestral to modern humans. But even if chimps or orangutans were indeed direct ancestors of humans there would be no reason for them not to still exist. Evolution is not a ladder of assent or decent. the ladder idea was just a simplification that helped to show how animals can evolve. It has no real bearing on the tree of life or evolution.

[REASON]

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

 

This question exemplifies the reason evolution should be taught in public schools.

 

Misconceptions abound. :cup:

[REASON]

See ya Ray.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I never claimed to be for intelligent design. And I don't do that now.

 

I am simply saying that to throw out intelligent design might be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Instead of teaching that intelligent design is wrong, why not teach that there are some people who believe that the complexity of life is such that we don't even comprehend a single cell, much less the intricacies of speciation.

 

I have nothing against the statement, "Evolution seems to explain much of speciation, but there are still some open questions." Or would you consider that a false statement?

 

To claim total knowledge of the process of that is to make a somewhat dubious claim, especially as to the 'details'.

 

But perhaps you are right and people today are smarter than they were 200 years ago since they are now taught in public schools, such bastions of burgeoning intelligence and skepticism.

 

I am simply a skeptic when it comes to believing that we have overwhelming evidence of any theory.

 

What is it like to have no doubt, anyway? Is it a religious experience?

[freeztar]

I have nothing against the statement, "Evolution seems to explain much of speciation, but there are still some open questions." Or would you consider that a false statement?

No, that is not a false statement. In fact, that was precisely how I was taught evolution in college (a public college). Why do you get the impression that it is taught as some sort of authoritarian dogma?

[Nitack]

I am simply saying that to throw out intelligent design might be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Instead of teaching that intelligent design is wrong, why not teach that there are some people who believe that the complexity of life is such that we don't even comprehend a single cell, much less the intricacies of speciation.

If a theory is hopelessly flawed and grounded in shoddy pseudoscience then yes you throw it out. Your argument is akin to keeping the theory that the world is flat alive. We already know it is false through empirical evidence, why would you keep teaching it?

[Moontanman]

I never claimed to be for intelligent design. And I don't do that now.

 

I am simply saying that to throw out intelligent design might be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Instead of teaching that intelligent design is wrong, why not teach that there are some people who believe that the complexity of life is such that we don't even comprehend a single cell, much less the intricacies of speciation.

 

I have nothing against the statement, "Evolution seems to explain much of speciation, but there are still some open questions." Or would you consider that a false statement?

 

To claim total knowledge of the process of that is to make a somewhat dubious claim, especially as to the 'details'.

 

But perhaps you are right and people today are smarter than they were 200 years ago since they are now taught in public schools, such bastions of burgeoning intelligence and skepticism.

 

I am simply a skeptic when it comes to believing that we have overwhelming evidence of any theory.

 

What is it like to have no doubt, anyway? Is it a religious experience?

 

You consistently misrepresent ID as a viable theory, it isn't, it assumes there are things about life and the universe we don't understand so therefore we cannot understand them with out an supernatural intelligence to show us how these things work. Evolutions doesn't claim to have all the answers, the ideas behind the natural development of life from non living chemicals doesn't pretend to know all the answers. The most recent research, of which you are obviously unaware, is pretty close to explaining the origin of life and our comprehension of a single cell is very close to being worked out. You are still 20 to 40 years behind the times. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, Science doesn't even claim it will ever have all the answers, it just claims that study of the natural world is the only way to find out these things. Arbitrarily interjecting a supernatural intelligence or God only serves to confuse the process and doesn't add anything to our understanding of the natural world.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

No, that is not a false statement. In fact, that was precisely how I was taught evolution in college (a public college). Why do you get the impression that it is taught as some sort of authoritarian dogma?

 

Because of the way the subject is treated by the evolutionists. By the way people were treated 50 years ago when they suggested that cataclysmic events may have shaped the history of life on earth. By the fact that events like Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake for claiming that the earth centric view of the universe was wrong happened. The fact that the mere mention of Intelligent Design in a scholarly paper can result in the end of one's career. I could continue with a few hundred more examples of blindness caused by 'certainty'. One doesn't have to look very far at all to find them. Human nature has not changed at all.

 

Each popular theory should be taught in public school and each should be treated respectfully. The solution to which is correct or more correct should be left to the study of skepticism and to each student - but skepticism is not taught in public school (at least not seriously).

 

And by 'public school' I mean 1-12. College isn't mandatory.

[Nitack]

Because of the way the subject is treated by the evolutionists. By the way people were treated 50 years ago when they suggested that cataclysmic events may have shaped the history of life on earth. By the fact that events like Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake for claiming that the earth centric view of the universe was wrong happened. The fact that the mere mention of Intelligent Design in a scholarly paper can result in the end of one's career. I could continue with a few hundred more examples of blindness caused by 'certainty'. One doesn't have to look very far at all to find them. Human nature has not changed at all.

 

Each popular theory should be taught in public school and each should be treated respectfully. The solution to which is correct or more correct should be left to the study of skepticism and to each student - but skepticism is not taught in public school (at least not seriously).

 

And by 'public school' I mean 1-12. College isn't mandatory.

Public school should be teaching critical thinking, not any particular dogma.

 

As for

The fact that the mere mention of Intelligent Design in a scholarly paper can result in the end of one's career.

Perhaps that is because Intelligent Design is so flawed a theory that to publicly declare your belief in it highlights a complete lack of critical thinking.

 

Once again, we no longer teach that the world is flat, we have enough empirical evidence to know that is not the case. There are still indigenous peoples in this world that believe it, but we do not teach it as possible just because some one some where believes it.

 

Each popular theory should be taught in public school and each should be treated respectfully.

Why should we teach based on the popularity of a theory? Shouldn't we teach based on the merit of the theory?

[Moontanman]

Because of the way the subject is treated by the evolutionists. By the way people were treated 50 years ago when they suggested that cataclysmic events may have shaped the history of life on earth. By the fact that events like Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake for claiming that the earth centric view of the universe was wrong happened. The fact that the mere mention of Intelligent Design in a scholarly paper can result in the end of one's career. I could continue with a few hundred more examples of blindness caused by 'certainty'. One doesn't have to look very far at all to find them. Human nature has not changed at all.

 

Each popular theory should be taught in public school and each should be treated respectfully. The solution to which is correct or more correct should be left to the study of skepticism and to each student - but skepticism is not taught in public school (at least not seriously).

 

And by 'public school' I mean 1-12. College isn't mandatory.

 

So you think a simple hypothesis with absolutely no real world evidence to back it up at all that supposes that a supernatural intelligence is responsible for the world, life and the universe and that these things are basically unknowable without this supernatural intelligence is a viable theory and should be taught along side the idea that the universe is not only knowable by studying the natural world it is also backed up by centuries of advancement based on the study of the natural world and that both are equally possible theories? Wow, talk about hubris:doh: And I thought my 12 second universe was off the wall.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

You hear what you want to hear. And ignore what you don't want to hear.

 

First of all, we're dealing with public schools. Not all folks who are taxed to pay for the schools agree with evolution. And when people are still forced to put their children in school and all of us are still forced to pay for public school, why would you say their wishes are not important?

 

I do not claim intelligent design is correct. I am saying that the book is still out on what life is, how it comes to be and how it branches out the way it does.

 

Evolution appears to answer many of the questions but by no means all of them. In other words, there are still questions.

 

To claim total knowledge is to stop the questions from taking place and in every case which I've ever seen, that just simply causes blindness to contradictory information. And intelligent design doesn't just mean design by God.

 

It means that if there is a causal reason why life exists, why it must exist, we might make ourselves blind to it. That's the baby I don't want to see thrown out. It might simply be a function of the nature of the universe and I am not smart enough to declare that we should not look in that direction for answers.

 

And if you are, nice to meet you. :cup:

[Nitack]

First of all, we're dealing with public schools. Not all folks who are taxed to pay for the schools agree with evolution. And when people are still forced to put their children in school and all of us are still forced to pay for public school, why would you say their wishes are not important?

 

We are taxed and finance public schools because it is the best interest of society in general to have an educated populous. That does not make the schools beholden to what ever propaganda that those taxed individuals chose to believe. The goal of education is to teach individuals how to be critical thinkers, and unfortunately some where along the way people tried use it as an indoctrination tool for religious dogma.

 

Despite the efforts by the religious right to promote Intelligent Design as scientific, it is not. I have no qualms with teaching that theory in a theology class where it belongs. It however has no place in a science class because it is not science. The definition of science

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Science is based in the idea of observing a phenomenon, developing a theory of why what you observed happened, and then experimenting to test your theory.

 

Intelligent design has no observable phenomenon and can not be tested because it all rests upon an unobservable and untestable creator. There is a word for that kind of belief, faith. Definition of faith

belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

[modest]

Intelligent design is not a theory. At best it is some hand waving that says “hey, evolution’s not perfect ya know” Evolution is the best scientific theory on the subject.

 

By analogy: Relativity is a theory. It’s not perfect, but it is by far the best for what it does. Do we have to invent a theory-x that waves its hands about and says relativity isn’t perfect? Insist it is taught in public schools? Wouldn’t that be a little silly? Do we need a theory-x for every conceivable missing step in science?

 

I think people who advocate this really don’t understand at all what a science theory is. No theory of science does everything. Evolution doesn’t deal with abiogenesis. Relativity doesn’t deal with quantum particles. Anyone who learns about these theories will understand said limitations without made up pseudo-theories that don’t do anything.

 

I blame the PTA :cup:

[Moontanman]

It means that if there is a causal reason why life exists, why it must exist, we might make ourselves blind to it. That's the baby I don't want to see thrown out. It might simply be a function of the nature of the universe and I am not smart enough to declare that we should not look in that direction for answers.

 

And if you are, nice to meet you. :cup:

 

Science actually already says that life is probably a function of the nature of the universe. Life exists because in our universe it can and is selected for by natural forces, no need for an outside intelligence god or other wise. Your whole argument is a house of cards that falls down every time it is examined critically.

[Moontanman]

By the way ldsoftwaresteve, you are the one who believes what he wants to believe, I simply follow the evidence. If the evidence pointed toward some outside intelligence that's where i would go but it doesn't and no amount of belief on your and anyone else part will make it other wise with out real world evidence. why do the need for real evidence frighten you so much? Could it be because your belief system cannot hold up to real world evidence? can you give any real world evidence for ID? the would be a million times more effective than simply whining that ID doesn't get any respect.