-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you vist no other Creation VS Evolution website you HAVE to Vist This one.
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
CCAPalandiriel
Member
*whistles* Wow. Bias across the board.......
McBell
Unbound
How so?
or are you claiming that Creation/ID is supposed to be biology?
I wonder what they mean by "Biological Evolution" and "Human Evolution" being listed as separate things.
McBell
Unbound
I suspect that it is because many people believe that humans are the same now as when god created them thus humans are exempt from the ToE.
Sure they are, sure they are... 
CCAPalandiriel
Member
No, but students of biology (if they are at all inquisitive and are actually paying attention in class) will ultimately question the origin of life. If ToE is taught as an explanation (it IS only a theory), than alternative explanations ought to be taught as well. Neither (at least not in public schools...private schools may do what they will) ought to be taught as THE truth.
The site seems to me to show bias for and against both ToE and ID/Creationism.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Well, you are correct that the theory of evolution (actually, theories) is only a theory, which is true of all theories, just like all water is water, or all big cats are big cats. However, evolution itself, the actual process, is a fact. Something that has been shown to be true. The ToE only speaks to the how of evolution. How did evolution take place.
* sigh* Not this again. Okay. So if alternatives ought to be taught than we should also teach astrology when we teach astronomy, alchemy when we teach chemistry, and phrenology when we teach psychology. Pretty stupid wouldn't you say. There IS no reasonable alternative to evolution that deserves class time.
But evolution is true. Scientifically true, which is why it belongs in science classes.
Bias? What kind of bias? The illustrations are based on evidence (polled responses) gathered in 2007. What makes you think the site may be biased?
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
How can we help?
Not necessarily, not anymore than they will question the origin of, say, time.
Uh, no. It is a proven theory, and has been so for at least a few decades. Evolution is a fact.
Sure. As soon as any presents itself. Creationism is quite literally a Deus Ex Machina, not a true explanation, so it does not qualify.
Why single out Evolution? It is as proven as one can reasonably expect any other theory that must be tested through whole generations of living beings could be.
To doubt it is not unlike doubting, say, that proteins are needed to build muscular tissue: quite arbitrary and at odds with plain, demonstrated facts.
Really? It seems quite the load of wishful thinking and misinformation to me. It is not worth taking seriously at all.
McBell
Unbound
And in a BIOLOGY class, that would be covered with abiogenesis.
Fact is that creation/id is not science.
Therefore it has absolutely no business in a science class.
You reveal your ignorance here.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
As soon as there are alternative scientific explanations, I am sure they will be discussed in a science class.
Since creation is about the furthest thing there is from science, it has absolutely no business in a science class room.
The truth is that evolution is a fact.
A proven fact.
An observed fact.
Creation/ID is nothing more than a belief.
The site shows that most science teachers teach science in science classrooms.
Since Creation/ID is not science, it stands to reason that it is not taught in a science classroom.
CCAPalandiriel
Member
Agreed. Evolution is a factual process. But the magnitude to which ToE puts it (speciation, for example) is not necessarily fact. Hence, theory status.
Ah yes...I've heard this many times before as well (which leads me to believe that neither will likely convince the other
Oh well). The difference here is that astronomy, alchemy, phrenology, etc. are all debunked. ID has a substantial amount of support in a portion of the scientific community. While the aforementioned pseudosciences once did as well, time proved that they were nothing but hot air. If they were still supported by some in the scientific community who advocated they had some legitimacy, I would admittedly consider them a possibility.However, until ID has been dropped to the status of phrenology etc., I think it ought to be taught as an option.
Certainly, I believe it is. The ToE, however, is not necessarily the truth. It just happens to be the most widely held belief, currently.
I'm sorry, thats not quite what I meant...the site itself seems completely trustworthy. I meant that whoever is instituting what can and cannot be taught is biased. E.g., some states biased against ToE and for ID, etc.
McBell
Unbound
As was ID.
Source please.
Yet ID has already been shown to be nothing more than reworded creationism.
Creationism has been shown to be absolutely nothing but a belief.
So ID has already been rightfully placed in with pseudoscience.
Sure.
They can teach ID in schools.
Just not in a science class.
Because ID is NOT science.
There is absolutely no science that supports it.
It is nothing but a belief.
Do yourself a favour and look up Scientific Theory.
I provided you a link in the other thread.
I agree.
They are biased.
Of course I completely agree with not teaching beliefs, regardless of how popular, in a science class.
RedOne77
Active Member
Evolution isn't a "proven" theory, as there can be no "proof" in science. Otherwise good post.
Thanks. However... at some point one has to be pragmatic. Technically, gravity isn't "proven" either.
RedOne77
Active Member
True, it is also a "fact" as well as a theory too. Scientific language is humble, and most don't understand it, which makes it easy to equivocate, which falls right into the creationist strategy. At times I do agree we have to bend scientific language a little to get a point across. If I can at all help it I try to just say this phenomena is a "scientific fact" instead of "proven" or that "theory" is as high as labels get in science for understanding natural phenomena.
CCAPalandiriel
Member
Ok, I've read all the posts above, but I really would rather not go through them all and quote them, haha.
I understand that the ToE is a scientific law. Thats all fine and dandy, but its not necessarily truth. ID isn't either...however, both ought to presented equally as possibilities. Sure, ToE may have more verifiable proof for it, but when you boil it down, both ToE and ID make assumptions about the origin of life (abiogenesis or God, or what have you), and that will ultimately lead to the philosophical questions of, "Why am I here?" "Where did I come from?" etc.
While ToE belongs in a biology class, and ID (unless we find proof) doesn't, I think that if teacher's want to be honest, they ought to at least make a passing mention of ID and encourage students to look it up and make a decision on their own. ToE, though it never specifically makes a statement about said philosophical questions, does make implications concerning them.
We're a little off topic here...I just think that if a teacher wants to really teach their students rather than push them through the system, then they need to be honest with students. If a student asks, answer. And if not (likely most won't) then like I said, make a passing mention of ID at least. You don't necessarily have to teach it.
I understand that the ToE is a scientific law. Thats all fine and dandy, but its not necessarily truth. ID isn't either...however, both ought to presented equally as possibilities. Sure, ToE may have more verifiable proof for it, but when you boil it down, both ToE and ID make assumptions about the origin of life (abiogenesis or God, or what have you), and that will ultimately lead to the philosophical questions of, "Why am I here?" "Where did I come from?" etc.
While ToE belongs in a biology class, and ID (unless we find proof) doesn't, I think that if teacher's want to be honest, they ought to at least make a passing mention of ID and encourage students to look it up and make a decision on their own. ToE, though it never specifically makes a statement about said philosophical questions, does make implications concerning them.
We're a little off topic here...I just think that if a teacher wants to really teach their students rather than push them through the system, then they need to be honest with students. If a student asks, answer. And if not (likely most won't) then like I said, make a passing mention of ID at least. You don't necessarily have to teach it.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I assume that by magnitude you mean "macro-evolution" or some such notion of degree. Therefore, while evolution is a fact, it only operates as such up to a certain point, at which point it stops being a fact and . . . ?CCAPalandiriel said:
ID has no such thing, and saying so won't make it so. I assume you've heard of Project Steve. If not, here's a description Wikipedia.
"The National Center for Science Education has produced a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition.
According to the United States Census, about 1.6% of males and 0.4% of females have a first name that would qualify them to sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all people in the United States are called Steve or some name that is close to Steve. Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endorse the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition. As of July 12, 2010, 1139 scientists named Steve had endorsed the petition, suggesting that if all scientists were allowed to endorse the petition, about 114,000 scientists would have signed.
In comparison, the Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007, which at face value indicates a broad consensus of at least 99% of scientists supporting the biological theory of evolution.
source
We understand each other? According to the United States Census, about 1.6% of males and 0.4% of females have a first name that would qualify them to sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all people in the United States are called Steve or some name that is close to Steve. Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endorse the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition. As of July 12, 2010, 1139 scientists named Steve had endorsed the petition, suggesting that if all scientists were allowed to endorse the petition, about 114,000 scientists would have signed.
In comparison, the Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007, which at face value indicates a broad consensus of at least 99% of scientists supporting the biological theory of evolution.
source
But that's not how education works. We don't teach whatever comes down the road simply because it does and some special interest group says it's true, and then continue teaching it until it's been disproved. What we do is teach what is known and accepted by those who have earned our trust in their respective fields of expertise.
No matter how many times you say it won't make it so. It is true.
Which is beside the point. Popularity doesn't equate with truth, and no rational person would ever put it up as an argument for truth.
I'd say school boards are the prime deciders. And if bias is part of the decision making operation I guess one could say that the pro evolution factions are biased toward the evidence, methods, and conclusions of science, while the pro ID/creation factions are biased toward religious, and faith based evidence. Now, of the two, which meets the requirements for inclusion in a science curriculum? No need to answer.