Should evolution be taught in schools?
-
The debate was already over a very long time ago.
Creationalism and IDism have already been ruled by the courts that it is not a valid scientific theory and should never be taught in a Science class as 'Science'.
Here's a related old news on a small part of the debate.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A0DEFDC1F39F93AA2575BC0A960948260 -
Here's the link to the pdf of the Kitzmiller vs Dover decision.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Judge Jones clearly explains why Creationism/Intelligent Design is not a science.
Also, you may be shocked by how many times the creationists were caught lying in court.
Many creationists from the Discovery Institute were also supposed to testify as expert witnesses but most of them pulled out. The bulk of the testimony fell on the shoulders of Michael Behe who tried to explain the concept of irreducible complexity. However, his arguments were systematically taken apart. -
The question is why shouldn't it be taught in schools?Originally posted by Catknight:It seems like a hotly debated subject in America public schools whether creationism should be taught hand in hand with darwin evolution or maybe not be taught at all .
Coming from a catholic school here, we never was indoctrinated with creation or evolution theory, we just do a prayer before going classes.
A separation from church and state now is debating whether there's a need to separate from church and public education too..tough choice if the parents are believers of christ.Maybe that's why we removed religous education to stop this divisve debate here -
You misunderstand what is a scientific theory.Originally posted by SBS3625D:Evolution itself is not proven, its a theory.
The late Stephen J. Gould explains:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the worldÂ’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. EinsteinÂ’s theory of gravitation replaced NewtonÂ’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by DarwinÂ’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Douglas J. Futuyma is the author of the introductory textbook on evolution, Evolutionary Biology and has this to say:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. -
This may be nit-picking but technically, evolutionary theory does not say that we evolved from monkeys.Originally posted by Deino:evolution should be taught in schools....but i dun agree on teaching that we evolved from monkeys coz they really isn't any definite proof that we did, thus it must be taught only as a theory instead......
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
More at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html -
did they find this "common ancestor" ?Originally posted by Phaze:This may be nit-picking but technically, evolutionary theory does not say that we evolved from monkeys.
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
More at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
well the key word to everything is believe..... -
Well yes they did. But you realize of course, there's no magic point when humans suddenly appeared. What we would consider human-like characteristics appeared slowly over time.Originally posted by Deino:did they find this "common ancestor" ?
well the key word to everything is believe.....
You may find a couple of these articles useful. They're a bit old, but should still largely be accurate.
The first is about a fossil finding.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
The second is about DNA analysis.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
One reason why the theory of evolution is so powerful is that not just one branch of science supports it. All related branches of science support evolutionary theory. Diifferent fields, approaching the problem in different ways, yet coming to the same conclusion.
It's like someone gives you a bag of 1 meter cubes, each weighing 1KG and asking you how many cubes there are. There are a few ways you can determine the number of cubes.
You can take the cubes out of the bag and physically count them.
You can weigh the cubes and determine how many cubes there are.
You can stack the cubes and measure the height.
You can sink the cubes in water and see how much water the cubes displace.
All these methods give you the same answer.
potholer54 has a good video called The Theory of Evolution Made Easy which you may be interested in watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4 -
I myself have been in the debate for evolution for a few years but obviously a lot of people still get brainwashed to think evolution is a myth. On one side, they believe life to gradually become (few billion years ) as diverse as now. On the other side, they just suddenly pop up in a second. Why don't i ask a few questions, if u believe in intelligent design,
There is something called a nylon ingesting bug. They only eat nylon and nylon is man made, and exist only recently. How do they survive from the past till now ?
U know the domesticated animals such as the cute puppies and cats or the sheeps and pigs ? They cannot survive in the wild and neither can u find such type of animals in the wild. They r wholly dependent on men to survive. How do they survive from the past till now ?
On a few occasions, whales caught in the wild r found to have a whole leg dangling with digits clearly seen on the whale. Scientists consider them to be an old DNA coding in the whale which sprung out on very very few individual in the species. In tis sense, whales in the past used to be legged creatures before evolving to the sea like animals now.
Lets consider the common banana. Do u know tat banana cannot survive without human because they have no seeds ? It is believe tat it start from a mutant species of banana, one without seeds and human start to reproduce it by cutting a small branch of the original tree and planting tat. After many years, banana become a few different species of its own which u can see in supermarket.
There r many famous bacteria and virus tat started plagues to human beings such as AIDs, black death and SARS. They have to be in a human body in order to survive. How does it get unnoticed for thousands of years, then suddenly popped up and kill people ?
If u just open your eyes and look around, u will see many examples of evolution working. It is true tat living beings changes with time. -
i watched the video and I like it
-
*slow claps*Originally posted by stupidissmart:I myself have been in the debate for evolution for a few years but obviously a lot of people still get brainwashed to think evolution is a myth. On one side, they believe life to gradually become (few billion years ) as diverse as now. On the other side, they just suddenly pop up in a second. Why don't i ask a few questions, if u believe in intelligent design,
There is something called a nylon ingesting bug. They only eat nylon and nylon is man made, and exist only recently. How do they survive from the past till now ?
U know the domesticated animals such as the cute puppies and cats or the sheeps and pigs ? They cannot survive in the wild and neither can u find such type of animals in the wild. They r wholly dependent on men to survive. How do they survive from the past till now ?
On a few occasions, whales caught in the wild r found to have a whole leg dangling with digits clearly seen on the whale. Scientists consider them to be an old DNA coding in the whale which sprung out on very very few individual in the species. In tis sense, whales in the past used to be legged creatures before evolving to the sea like animals now.
Lets consider the common banana. Do u know tat banana cannot survive without human because they have no seeds ? It is believe tat it start from a mutant species of banana, one without seeds and human start to reproduce it by cutting a small branch of the original tree and planting tat. After many years, banana become a few different species of its own which u can see in supermarket.
There r many famous bacteria and virus tat started plagues to human beings such as AIDs, black death and SARS. They have to be in a human body in order to survive. How does it get unnoticed for thousands of years, then suddenly popped up and kill people ?
If u just open your eyes and look around, u will see many examples of evolution working. It is true tat living beings changes with time.
A little confusing and long winded, but pretty much covers it. I like how creationists blame every single thing to happen on human sins. Way to go guys! -
Because Christianity teaches that man is the lord of nature(if you know what lord of nature means).Originally posted by cApitaland:whats wrong with being vegetarian!?
note: i love my chicken fried. -
It's been the conventional wisdom that scientists are atheists, but not so, by a long shot.
Professor Richard Bube of Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as atheistic scientists."
But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the hand of God in the universe is remarkably high. - Charles Colson. -
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
From the leading journal "Nature". 72% of greater scientist DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD. 21% R NOT CERTAIN while only 7% BELIEVE.
Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Charles Colson, is a religious person, jailed for obstruction of justice for water-gate related scandal and tis is his personal comment
I think u have to give better evidences to support your claim
-
There is so much evidence that evolution occurs that even creationists cannot completely deny it. But what they do is make a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"Originally posted by stupidissmart:I myself have been in the debate for evolution for a few years but obviously a lot of people still get brainwashed to think evolution is a myth. On one side, they believe life to gradually become (few billion years ) as diverse as now. On the other side, they just suddenly pop up in a second. Why don't i ask a few questions, if u believe in intelligent design,
*snip*
Creationists have defined something called a "kind'. A "kind" is something like a species. They had to come up with the concept of a "kind" when too much evidence of speciation was presented.
Originally, their argument was "sure, a nylon eating bug can evolve. But it's still a bug". But you don't see one species of animal turning into another. You don't see dogs turning to horses for example (which of course is a nonsensical argument if you understand evolutionary theory).
However, when you use the scientific definition of "species", there's undeniable evidence that new species can evolve so now creationists say "sure, you have a new species, but it's still the same kind of creature.
It's interesting to note there's not formal definition of what a "kind" is. -
I have been debating on macroevolution with them before as well
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
To me I find it funny for people to believe tat species changes over time but do not believe species changes greatly over greater time.
It is like telling me they believe tadpoles growing bigger, tail shorter and leg bigger day by day but do not believe they will become a frog one day. -
One of the funniest banana related video I've seen is from the Way of the Master Series starring Kirk Cameron (from Growing Pains) and Ray Comfort.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Lets consider the common banana. Do u know tat banana cannot survive without human because they have no seeds ? It is believe tat it start from a mutant species of banana, one without seeds and human start to reproduce it by cutting a small branch of the original tree and planting tat. After many years, banana become a few different species of its own which u can see in supermarket.
There r many famous bacteria and virus tat started plagues to human beings such as AIDs, black death and SARS. They have to be in a human body in order to survive. How does it get unnoticed for thousands of years, then suddenly popped up and kill people ?
If u just open your eyes and look around, u will see many examples of evolution working. It is true tat living beings changes with time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk
He does make a good point except that many have pointed out that the banana he's holding looks designed because it WAS designed. It was designed by man.
The modern banana that we buy from supermarkets today has been bred for desirable characteristics.
In any case, if the banana is proof of god's existence, I wonder what's the significance of a durian then. :p -
In any case, if the banana is proof of god's existence, I wonder what's the significance of a durian then. :p
The guy in the youtube video don't know wat he is talking about Fruits r evolved to be eaten by animals. It help them spread their seeds to other areas and increase their survivability and tat is why it is tasty and easy for animals to eat. If god really design the fruit to be eaten by men, then they should not have seeds making us harder to eat them. spreading seed is a survival trait and tat is evolution
I think tis guy will next say why the grape r becoming seedless or watermelon have smaller seeds because god created them to be eaten by men. These features r actually made by human effort -
I'm not here to prove that God is the creator but is evolution scientific? It's a theory or philosophy at best.
Let the experts decide.
From Stephen Hawking
"The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."
From Albert Einstein
"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
From Werner von Braun, father of space science
"The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Charles Darwin wrote the following in "Origin of Species"
'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.'
Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, "The Creation-Evolution Controversy"
"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."
From Physicist Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics"
"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out...The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design."
From Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University
"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one."
From Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, "Cosmos, Bios, and Theos"
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan."
From Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology"
"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."
From Astronomer George Greenstein, "The Symbiotic Universe"
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency--or, rather, Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
From Dr. David Berlinski Ph.D. in mathematics, Princeton University
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."
From Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist
"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
From Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
From Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."
From Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History
"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."
From Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel
"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
From Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
continue next post.... -
continue from preivous post....
From Dr. Arthur Koestler
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."
From Prof.Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."
From Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture,"
"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."
From Hubert P. Yockey Ph. D., Physics, University of California, Berkeley.
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written."
From Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge
"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species."
From George Sim Johnson "Did Darwin Get it Right?" The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."
From Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist
"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."
From Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung
"A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution." "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."
From Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." "Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."
Sir Fred Hoyle, British physicist and astronomer
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein."
From Professor Harold Morowitz
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"
From Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability
"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place." -
Aiyoh... u know I can find 100 quotes from famous people telling the creator god is a terrible myth as well. I have already mentioned, 7% of scientist believed in god. U just ask them to comment and u can find hundreds of comments promoting religion
If u wanna debunk evolution, then do it from evidences and not wat someone said in their life before.
I have issued tis challenges many times before. State me a scientific organisation tat do not support evolution as science. If u can find me a scientific organisation tat do not believe evolution, then i say evolution has some doubts. If u can only show me religious organisations tat state evolution is a fraud, then it just prove evolution is not religious but is scientific. -
People would rather believe in experts then believe in you, isn't that true?
Evidence to prove biological evolution...like how a land animal adapts to living in waters.
Theory of evolution cannot produce scientific facts on how life begins. -
People would rather believe in experts then believe in you, isn't that true?
Why r u afraid to show evidence tat prove evolution wrong ? I am not the one doing all the research but scientist r. And they r the real experts here. U r just telling me some personal opinions of famous people who give no evidence other than personal comments -
How can I? I'm not an expert in this field. Neither can the experts produce evidence to prove the origin of life.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why r u afraid to show evidence tat prove evolution wrong ? I am not the one doing all the research but scientist r. And they r the real experts here. U r just telling me some personal opinions of famous people who give no evidence other than personal comments -
Evidence to prove biological evolution...like how a land animal adapts to living in waters.
U don't need evolution to show how a land animal adapt to living in water. U look at goose, ducks, frogs, mudfish, seals, tortoise, crabs and many other animals tat can survive in water and land at the same time -
How can I? I'm not an expert in this field. Neither can the experts produce evidence to prove the origin of life.
U can read the experts report and evidence isn't it Have u ever learned science before ? U don't need to be an expert to read science, u just read the conclusions made by scientist, see if it is logical or conduct your own experiment if u r in doubt
And evolution is not talking about the origin of life