|
Post by greekgod on Sept 14, 2011 18:19:03 GMT -6
Should Evolution be Taught In Public Schools?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 18:38:17 GMT -6
Creationism makes life so much easier.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Sept 14, 2011 18:55:47 GMT -6
Yes, as should Creationism. Let the individual decide which they believe. It sure would have helped us evolve faster in the days of the flat Earth................
But then Y'all seem to be as one sided as the Nutcase Christians..........
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 14, 2011 19:12:52 GMT -6
And they should probably teach Ancient Alien theory also.
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 15, 2011 0:32:14 GMT -6
Of course. Evolution is a scientific theory and a biological fact.
I am not opposed to the teaching of creationism in classes on religion or mythology. Certainly not in science class because it is scientifically untestable and completely against the basis of science which is the search for truth. Saying, "I don't know, so GOD did it." is lazy.
Snipe, your comment of "It sure would have helped us evolve faster in the days of the flat Earth................" makes no sense. What are you trying to say? Teaching creationism in the "flat earth" days would have led us out of the "flat earth" mindset? Perhaps your point is that teaching evolution then would have done the same? People realized that the earth was not flat centuries before Darwin came around.
F12, I feel about the same on your ancient alien theory as I do about creationism. It often falls into the "I don't know, so ALIENS did it" (pyramids for example) that is the same as the creationists.
JimmyB, Your comment said a lot in few words. Thanks even though you didn't provide your answer.
Greek, are you the "no" vote trying to stir things up? You didn't say what you thought either.
Thanks for the thread, now I'm gonna go dig through my Richard Dawkins books!
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Sept 15, 2011 6:47:26 GMT -6
Snipe, your comment of "It sure would have helped us evolve faster in the days of the flat Earth................" makes no sense. What are you trying to say? Teaching creationism in the "flat earth" days would have led us out of the "flat earth" mindset? Perhaps your point is that teaching evolution then would have done the same? People realized that the earth was not flat centuries before Darwin came around. Octavium, I agree with your comment that Creationism is not science and thus should not be taught in Science class, I disagree that it should be limited to a Religious class, way too easy to pigeonhole it in the "secular" school systems. Perhaps since it is a part of our Society, it should be included in Sociology? Anyway, you are correct, teaching Creationism has nothing to do with the Earth being flat, or not. Look past the specific example and realize the CONCEPT that all REASONABLE sides should be explored. Now you start trying to teach that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Earth, and we have a problem.... Anyway, ideas need to be filtered through the purifier of light, and the best way to expose it to light is to present it to the masses.
|
|
|
Post by twista on Sept 15, 2011 6:51:37 GMT -6
this falls into religion which you have people who are atheist and don't want gods religion shoved down their throats. they don't believe in god.
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 15, 2011 7:03:53 GMT -6
this falls into religion which you have people who are atheist and don't want gods religion shoved down their throats. they don't believe in god. No, not entirely. Arguments that involve religion are allowed to be discussed in schools. Schools shouldn't be proselytizing or assigning preference to one religious belief over another. This is a separate matter. I see no harm in taking a middle of the road approach, whereby a science teacher presents all reasonable theories and allows the students to decide for themselves which one is meritorious. In all reality, isn't that what everyone does in the real world anyhow? After all, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc. are all theories, not scientific laws. There's nothing wrong with debating the merits of reasonable theories, and even noting that evolution is the only one embraced by the majority of the scientific community since it doesn't take into account faith-based arguments. I don't see why everything has to result in a tug of war between varied factions of the populace.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 15, 2011 7:08:59 GMT -6
Oct-Evolution and creationism are theories also, so why not teach ALL the theories if you're gonna teach any?
AAT is very popular on the History Channel and kids/people are watching it!
The bible is full of people "coming down from the sky" and breeding with earthlings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2011 8:26:45 GMT -6
Oct-Evolution and creationism are theories also, so why not teach ALL the theories if you're gonna teach any? AAT is very popular on the History Channel and kids/people are watching it! The bible is full of people "coming down from the sky" and breeding with earthlings. I agree. They are all theories and they all should be introduced or mentioned just as all other theories are introduced or mentioned in other disciplines such as math, physics, psychology, chemistry, ect. Not much time should be spent on theories. Science is the study of facts, and until theories are able to be proven true, they are only theories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2011 16:56:00 GMT -6
Of course. Evolution is a scientific theory and a biological fact. I am not opposed to the teaching of creationism in classes on religion or mythology. Certainly not in science class because it is scientifically untestable and completely against the basis of science which is the search for truth. Saying, "I don't know, so GOD did it." is lazy. Snipe, your comment of "It sure would have helped us evolve faster in the days of the flat Earth................" makes no sense. What are you trying to say? Teaching creationism in the "flat earth" days would have led us out of the "flat earth" mindset? Perhaps your point is that teaching evolution then would have done the same? People realized that the earth was not flat centuries before Darwin came around. F12, I feel about the same on your ancient alien theory as I do about creationism. It often falls into the "I don't know, so ALIENS did it" (pyramids for example) that is the same as the creationists. JimmyB, Your comment said a lot in few words. Thanks even though you didn't provide your answer. Greek, are you the "no" vote trying to stir things up? You didn't say what you thought either. Thanks for the thread, now I'm gonna go dig through my Richard Dawkins books! Patron Saint of all the people who, when they die and see what's on the other side of death...go..."OHHHHH shiiiiiiit...that goddamm Dawkins!"
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Sept 16, 2011 11:29:06 GMT -6
this falls into religion which you have people who are atheist and don't want gods religion shoved down their throats. they don't believe in god. No, not entirely. Arguments that involve religion are allowed to be discussed in schools. Schools shouldn't be proselytizing or assigning preference to one religious belief over another. This is a separate matter.
I see no harm in taking a middle of the road approach, whereby a science teacher presents all reasonable theories and allows the students to decide for themselves which one is meritorious. In all reality, isn't that what everyone does in the real world anyhow? After all, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc. are all theories, not scientific laws. There's nothing wrong with debating the merits of reasonable theories, and even noting that evolution is the only one embraced by the majority of the scientific community since it doesn't take into account faith-based arguments. I don't see why everything has to result in a tug of war between varied factions of the populace.I think you hit on the crux of the argument above. Debating merits of reasonable theories. I would think, that the reason that science (evolution) doesn't take into account faith based theories, is because that's what they are. 'Faith" based. Generally not rooted in scientific facts the modern day theory of evolution is founded on. As defined so, faith based theories would not be reasonable in that light, so why should they be taught?
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 17, 2011 2:45:03 GMT -6
Snipe, your comment of "It sure would have helped us evolve faster in the days of the flat Earth................" makes no sense. What are you trying to say? Teaching creationism in the "flat earth" days would have led us out of the "flat earth" mindset? Perhaps your point is that teaching evolution then would have done the same? People realized that the earth was not flat centuries before Darwin came around. Octavium, I agree with your comment that Creationism is not science and thus should not be taught in Science class, I disagree that it should be limited to a Religious class, way too easy to pigeonhole it in the "secular" school systems. Perhaps since it is a part of our Society, it should be included in Sociology? Anyway, you are correct, teaching Creationism has nothing to do with the Earth being flat, or not. Look past the specific example and realize the CONCEPT that all REASONABLE sides should be explored. Now you start trying to teach that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Earth, and we have a problem.... Anyway, ideas need to be filtered through the purifier of light, and the best way to expose it to light is to present it to the masses. I would not oppose creationism being mentioned in a sociology class. ("Mentioned", not "taught" in the sense that subjects such as fascism are mentioned and discussed in history classes and not "taught" in the "indoctrination" sense) I am glad we can agree that creationism is not science. Your Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy kind of proves a point. "Pastafarians" (funny name, the goofs) are no more or less "REASONABLE" than creationists. They both rely on stuff people made up.
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 17, 2011 2:56:58 GMT -6
Oct-Evolution and creationism are theories also, so why not teach ALL the theories if you're gonna teach any? AAT is very popular on the History Channel and kids/people are watching it! The bible is full of people "coming down from the sky" and breeding with earthlings. Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. Yes the history channel also shows stuff on bigfoot, the masons, on and on. I don't care if "kids/people" are watching it. That does not make it true. A lot of kids/people eat at McDonalds, does that make it the best food out there? Ancient Aliens? Show non anecdotal or inferred evidence. I am open to the possibility , but I can't read the mind of those that drew "aliens" in caves thousands of years ago. Creationism? Show me non anecdotal or inferred evidence. I am open to the possibility, but I can't read the minds of the men who wrote essays compiled into a book a thousand years ago.
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 17, 2011 3:00:57 GMT -6
Oh, and not to forget the attention Butters so craves.
Yes, Butters, I saw your post. Would you like to contribute to the discussion or just troll?
Speaking of Dawkins, perhaps you should read The Selfish Gene. You might learn something about yourself.
|
|