evolution in schools

[Fade]

But then comes the next cop out - we just dont know yet how life could have started, yet the complexities of life are just becoming more aweinspiring.

Saying you don't know the answer is hardly a cop out. Not trying to find the answer and appealing to a divine cause is a cop out. :bonk:

edit - yay for my 500th post :jiggy:

 

[Boat]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I just wanted to add that just about everyone in school already knows of creationism, and highschoolers (at least in Virginia) begin studying the different religions throughout the world and history in the 9th grade.

 

[Steve]

But then comes the next cop out - we just dont know yet how life could have started, yet the complexities of life are just becoming more aweinspiring.

Saying you don't know the answer is hardly a cop out. Not trying to find the answer and appealing to a divine cause is a cop out. :bonk:

edit - yay for my 500th post :jiggy:

No - saying you dont know the answer yet insisting that a purly naturalistic answer will one day present itself even though the more we learn the less plausable its becoming is a cop out.
You say not trying to find the answer is a cop out, they have been trying to find an answer for a long time now when will they admit that the evidence shows there is no naturalistic answer? Agnostics etc always say they want proof of a creator yet they wont accept it when its presented and instead opt for the "we will find the naturalistic answer in the future" routine - it just shows that no matter what is shown to them even if they cant explain it they will not accept it and would rather believe an answer lies in the future regardless of the evidence.
Have you ever considered perhaps the evidence argues againsts a naturalistic origin of life because there wasnt a naturalistic origin to life?
What if the answer naturalists all wish existed simply dosnt???
The evidence is increasingly showing the improbability/impossibility of life from naturalistic processes- what ever happened to learning from what the evidence points too?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The evidence is increasingly showing the improbability/impossibility of life from naturalistic processes ...

That is ludicrous.

 

[Steve]

The evidence is increasingly showing the improbability/impossibility of life from naturalistic processes ...

That is ludicrous.

profound jayhawker - profound.

Id like to know what evidence it is jayhawker that makes you so confident that naturalistic processes are the answer to lifes origin?
What is it you know that people like Dr. Dean Kenyon (authors of such books as 'biochemical predestination' and an evolutionist for much of his life until realising the absurdity of naturalistic processes acounting the origin of life) dont know?
Why do you have such strong faith in naturalism?

 

[Fade]

Have you ever considered perhaps the evidence argues againsts a naturalistic origin of life because there wasnt a naturalistic origin to life?
What if the answer naturalists all wish existed simply dosnt???

What evidence argues against a naturalistic origin?

 

[Opethian]

None.

Here's a simple fact: anti-evolutionists don't understand evolution. That's why they cannot accept it. It is easy to view something as absurd when you don't grasp the basic process and don't have any knowledge or understanding of the evidence supporting it. People with simple minds like simple explanations.

 

[Fade]

Or people tend not to agree with things that make their beliefs seem obsolete/ridiculous.

 

[Opethian]

I probably should've added that. Religious brainwashing is a powerful tool indeed. Even if people have the capability to understand evolution, their religion may cause them to not have the will to understand it.

 

[Steve]

Here's a simple fact: anti-evolutionists don't understand evolution. That's why they cannot accept it. It is easy to view something as absurd when you don't grasp the basic process and don't have any knowledge or understanding of the evidence supporting it. People with simple minds like simple explanations.

Thats a ridiculous statement, do you suppose that scientist like Dr. Dean Kenyon dont understand evolution? Just because he eventually came to the conclusion that it cannot acount for what we see your answer is he must understand it? Its absurd, perhaps your right "People with simple minds like simple explanations".

Or people tend not to agree with things that make their beliefs seem obsolete/ridiculous.

Absoulutley agree, otherwise the knowledge we now have regarding life and the sheer improbability/impossibility of naturalistic processes starting and improving life forms to what we see today would render naturalism obsolete and ridiculous.

 

[Faint]

What is it you know that people like Dr. Dean Kenyon (authors of such books as 'biochemical predestination' and an evolutionist for much of his life until realising the absurdity of naturalistic processes acounting the origin of life) dont know?

...do you suppose that scientist like Dr. Dean Kenyon dont understand evolution?

[ You seem rather fond of this Dr. Dean guy. The simple fact that he supports "Intelligent Design" and is a fellow of the infamous Discovery Institute is enough to tell me that he's not exactly firing on all thrusters.

 

[JerryL]

Thats a ridiculous statement, do you suppose that scientist like Dr. Dean Kenyon dont understand evolution? Just because he eventually came to the conclusion that it cannot acount for what we see your answer is he must understand it? Its absurd, perhaps your right "People with simple minds like simple explanations".

Actually, Dr.Kenyon is simply a liar. He's one of the co-authors of "Of Pandas and People" which was creationist until the words were replaced with "Intelligent Deisgn". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html

 

[Fade]

Thats a ridiculous statement, do you suppose that scientist like Dr. Dean Kenyon dont understand evolution? Just because he eventually came to the conclusion that it cannot acount for what we see your answer is he must understand it? Its absurd, perhaps your right "People with simple minds like simple explanations".

Yes I do suppose that Dr. Dean Kenyon doesn't understand evolution. Any person claiming to be a scientist who can examine the quite literally overwhelming flood of evidence in favour of evolution and then come to the conclusion that it doesn't account for what we see is either mentally retarded or pushing an agenda.

Absoulutley agree, otherwise the knowledge we now have regarding life and the sheer improbability/impossibility of naturalistic processes starting and improving life forms to what we see today would render naturalism obsolete and ridiculous.

Keep banging that drum Steve :bonk:

 

[Opethian]

Yes I do suppose that Dr. Dean Kenyon doesn't understand evolution. Any person claiming to be a scientist who can examine the quite literally overwhelming flood of evidence in favour of evolution and then come to the conclusion that it doesn't account for what we see is either mentally retarded or pushing an agenda.

Damn you beat me to that

Absoulutley agree, otherwise the knowledge we now have regarding life and the sheer improbability/impossibility of naturalistic processes starting and improving life forms to what we see today would render naturalism obsolete and ridiculous.

Some people have too little knowledge combined with too little intelligence. This condition can make these humans form laughable sentences such as the above quote. :bonk:

 

[dorcas3000]

The study of evolutionary processes should be taught in science classrooms, because current evolutionary processes can be studied with the use of the scientific method. Evolution as a theory for the origin of the earth, should not be taught as 'science' because it is really historic speculation. Science can only affirm how 'evolution' occurs now, under the variables that we live under. Scientists cannot use the scientific method to affirm evolutionary processes over hundreds of thousands of years. The most you can get from science is "Based on what we observe about evolutionary processes that occur today within this incomparibly minute time frame compared to the overall 'evolution' of the earth, we can speculate that maybe, possibly, evolutionary processes occured in this same fashion many many years ago." That is speculation, it can never be proven, and it can never be verified by the scientific method.

Both evolution and creationism are speculation. Evolution uses scientific observations to speculate an elaborate theory, Creationism is based in written documents. Both require a great amount of faith, and the debate between the two belongs in a philosophy classroom, not a science classroom. IMO, neither arguement is more credible than the other.

 

[Ormiston]

The study of evolutionary processes should be taught in science classrooms, because current evolutionary processes can be studied with the use of the scientific method. Evolution as a theory for the origin of the earth, should not be taught as 'science' because it is really historic speculation. Science can only affirm how 'evolution' occurs now, under the variables that we live under. Scientists cannot use the scientific method to affirm evolutionary processes over hundreds of thousands of years. The most you can get from science is "Based on what we observe about evolutionary processes that occur today within this incomparibly minute time frame compared to the overall 'evolution' of the earth, we can speculate that maybe, possibly, evolutionary processes occured in this same fashion many many years ago." That is speculation, it can never be proven, and it can never be verified by the scientific method.

Both evolution and creationism are speculation. Evolution uses scientific observations to speculate an elaborate theory, Creationism is based in written documents. Both require a great amount of faith, and the debate between the two belongs in a philosophy classroom, not a science classroom. IMO, neither arguement is more credible than the other.

I'm not sure what you mean by "origin of the Earth". I agree that much of what is taught in science is speculation, but I don't understand why you feel that we shouldn't approach issues about the distant past in school (if I'm understanding you correctly - sorry if I'm not). I don't agree that the study evolution requires ANY faith. It's simply a tool used by scientists and teachers to try and clarify how the world works. Also, I think that there is more credibility in evolution because of its usefulness and potential. As an example, evolution may help in predicting future trends amoung animal populations. As far as current uses, at the very least it allows people to discuss scientific observations by providing terminology to explain these observations. Creationism is only useful in supporting a religious belief. How can study of creationism help science? It can't. Thus it shouldn't be taught in science class.

 

[dorcas3000]

Using our understanding of evolutionary processes in the way you are describing seems fine to me. I agree, creationism doesn't really help science. But neither does a speculation of the origin of humans. I find 'evolutionary theory' as a whole completely irrelevant in a science classroom.

Saying "we evolved from monkeys" in a science classroom asserts that evolution is more correct than religious beliefs simply because it is a speculation extended from scientific thought. Such historical speculation is inappropriate in a SCIENCE classroom. I do however think that evolutionary theory has its place in philosophical debates, because that is more appropriate. Since the US education system - stinks - most schools don't teach their kids to debate such subjects.

 

[darkwaldo]

Using our understanding of evolutionary processes in the way you are describing seems fine to me. I agree, creationism doesn't really help science. But neither does a speculation of the origin of humans. I find 'evolutionary theory' as a whole completely irrelevant in a science classroom.

Saying "we evolved from monkeys" in a science classroom asserts that evolution is more correct than religious beliefs simply because it is a speculation extended from scientific thought. Such historical speculation is inappropriate in a SCIENCE classroom. I do however think that evolutionary theory has its place in philosophical debates, because that is more appropriate. Since the US education system - stinks - most schools don't teach their kids to debate such subjects.

I don't really agree with you, there is alot of fossil evidence which shows how humans evolved. Showing this is certainly appropriate in science class because it can help explain the process of evolution and increases our understanding of where we come from. Now that I think about it, there should probably be more ephasis on this subject in history classes.

 

[dorcas3000]

Ooh evolution in history makes much more sense. Really, the study of fossils and stuff, it's more historical than it is scientific.

 

[Ormiston]

Using our understanding of evolutionary processes in the way you are describing seems fine to me. I agree, creationism doesn't really help science. But neither does a speculation of the origin of humans. I find 'evolutionary theory' as a whole completely irrelevant in a science classroom.

Saying "we evolved from monkeys" in a science classroom asserts that evolution is more correct than religious beliefs simply because it is a speculation extended from scientific thought. Such historical speculation is inappropriate in a SCIENCE classroom. I do however think that evolutionary theory has its place in philosophical debates, because that is more appropriate. Since the US education system - stinks - most schools don't teach their kids to debate such subjects.

I can see where you are coming from with the "we evolved from monkeys" and how some might find that statement insulting. I haven't had a class on evolution in a long time and the "monkey" comment might be a gross over-simplification of how the material is presented. But, science is about theories, among other things, and these theories have to be explained to our children. The theory of evolution does suggest to some scientists that we evolved from monkeys. The reason that it's mentioned frequently and sticks out like it does is because of the vast numbers of scientists that believe in the statement and the impact that this discovery has had on our society.

The origins of humans and/or life is the #1 greatest and most important question in science (or one of the). The question has to be addressed in a classroom or we are doing a disservice to our children and science as a whole.