Should evolution be taught in schools?

Evolution is just a theory, but creationism is also a theory should it not be taught as well?

Not this again. Isn't there a huge thread in /SCIIIIEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE/ about this?

Teaching in schools is a political issue, not a scientific one. The one in the science section and this one are completely different.

"Creationism" opens a whole religious can of worms which does not benefit public schools.  Saying "GOD put it there." is only really useful if one has an idea who "GOD" is, but there's no way to really know that until everyone's dead, or He comes down with an official text book hand-delivered to the schools (even that, many non-believers will try to chalk it up to a publicity stunt).

Unless you have a religiously-biased school, I see no advantage to teaching creationism at all.

However, explaining that evolution is only a theory, and not undisputed fact, should be mandatory, as with all scientific theories.

the really cute thing about the whole intelligent design debate is that the notion that 'a complex universe implies a creator' is precisely what was demolished by evolution's introduction, and is rejected by all serious persons.  ^_^

>>3
well he was calling evolution 'just a theory' and that is very much a scieence question.

What people call a 'theory' and what scientists call a 'theory' is a matter of definition. A scientific theory is a set of truths that has yet to be put down. Any intelligent person with the most basic knowledge of the mathematics and mechanisms involved can see that evolution is not a theory, it is a solid bloody fact. Intelligent design is just these people's way of trying to get the Biblical idea of creationism taught in public schools. The government has no business teaching our kids religion.

>>7
Incorrect.

Your heart is in the right place, >>7, but you've completely missed how science works. It's this form of ignorance that allows the ID bunch to get away with it; if everyone understood how science works, the discussion would be over.

Can't blame you though. It's not immediately obvious.

>>8
All of it? Everything I said was just.. incorrect, huh? Rebuke my points, numbnuts.

>>7

I am a distinct poster from >>8, but I'll take a crack at it.

sentence:
1: although phrased poorly, I see what you're getting at here.
2: also phrased poorly, in addition to contradicting 3.  Correct me if I get it wrong, but what you're saying here is: "A scientific theory is a model, or group of ideas, which is used to explain physical observances, until a better model can be proposed."
3: What is a matter of fact?  True, we have to make a lot of tacit assumptions- (I'm sober, I'm mentally well, the universe is 'real', and not a hallucination)-from here we begin to amass facts.  I have $10 bux in my pocket, it's sunny outside, I HEARD on the news the other day that Sulu was gay.  Beyond this are a set of things which I haven't personally seen, but COULD be conclusively verified with sufficient effort.  In order to conclude that man had visited the moon, I could work up a super powerful telescope, or go up there myself.  To say that evolution is a solid bloody fact, then, is to say that you have all the empirical information you could ever want to take the explanation as a matter of fact.  Except that it's not a fact.  It's a theory (A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena, zing) A very GOOD theory at that, but a theory, simply by dint of the breadth of what it claims.  When you retreat into emotional proclamations (it's a fucking fact) you are no better than the Jesus freaks.
4: Correct.
5: Correct.

>>4
Since your explaining evolution is a theory, shouldn't you also teach creationism and explain it is a theory as well?

>>12
Creationism isn't a theory because you can't make any testable predictions.

>>12
there's an infinite number of 'theories' that would fall into the same category as creationism.  if there's no scholastic advantage to pointing it out (read: any way to demonstrate it's validity and/or it's relevance to daily life), it shouldn't be in school.

if you want to teach creationism for the sake of a 'thorough' education, you should also have to teach ressurection (things are here because people were bad in the other life), pantheism (things are here because they're God), and invisible pink unicorns (things are here because the unicorns need to eat them to stay invisible), as well as every other 'possible' theory.

as i mentioned earlier, unless there's a religious bias in the school itself (a Catholic school, for example), creationism is irrelevant to one's studies.  there's no reason to fluff student's minds with every single unprovable idea out there at the expense of actually teaching them something useful.

I went to a Catholic school. They'd never have taught something like creationism. Science was science, and religion was religion.

>>10
Yes.

"What people call a 'theory' and what scientists call a 'theory' is a matter of definition."
No. It has the same meaning. Theory cannot be Law. 

"A scientific theory is a set of truths that has yet to be put down."
No. You have it the wrong way around. Theory is not truth. It is ideas yet to be proven true (or false).

"Any intelligent person with the most basic knowledge of the mathematics and mechanisms involved can see that evolution is not a theory, it is a solid bloody fact."
No. Evolution is rife with problems. Darwinism cannot explain irreducibly complex systems, the emergence of life, or consciousness in an adequate manner. These are issues commonly sidestepped by proponents of Evolution Theory. Darwinism has useful applications, but as the SOLE EXPLANATION of all biological phenomena, it is insufficient. 

"Intelligent design is just these people's way of trying to get the Biblical idea of creationism taught in public schools."
Intelligent Design is Creationism without the dogma. The two are commonly confused. The political interest in teaching Creationism subliminally using Intelligent Design as the "front" vehicle is perhaps true in some cases.

"The government has no business teaching our kids religion."
This can be argued. However, Intelligent Design, as above stated, is Creationism without the dogma. Religious bias might creep into the teaching but this is a fault of teachers, not material.

Darwinism should be given its rightful place as a scientific work in progress. All too often it is regarded as fact and taken for granted, which is not only untrue but misleads students into thinking there are no problems with the theory, and that it has practically no academic opponents. Good scientific attitudes should be encouraged. 

Same as >>16

To answer >>1 it is necessary to come to terms with the state of the teaching of evolution as it currently stands.

Because of the level of understanding - high school standard - information has to be simplified. Parallels can be drawn in other subjects, such as physics. In high schools people are taught Newtonian physics because it is exhaustive at that standard. Within the parameters what is taught more than suffices. Nevertheless, students who take senior-level physics subjects are also taught that what they learnt before is too simple a model - and are introduced to more advanced concepts. Nowhere, however, does a student's education come into conflict with up-to-date scientific studies; all the contentious principles are far more advanced. It also must be said theoretical physics as a scientific discipline is rigorous, well tested and open-minded to alternatives.             

Darwinism as a theory is not as rigorous, well-tested or open-minded to alternatives by a long shot. What is taught in high schools, though appropriate to the standard that is required of students, is often STILL IN FIERCE CONTENTION in scientific circles. Schools are teaching material that has NOT been clearly established on scientific study.

When comparing theoretical physics to Darwinism it is clear to see that theories differ greatly in their strength. That a study is theory or not is not a good indicator of scientific validity. What should be taught is the nature of the different disciplines in an objective light so that disciplines with strong or weak theories are shown to be such.

Evolution is an insightful theory, and far stronger scientifically that Creationism (which is pseudo-religion).
Religion is such a sensitive issue it is best left out of the curriculum. However, as a valid and scientific alternative to Creationism, Intelligent Design should be taught, to better put the current state of knowledge more accurately.

Darwinism cannot explain irreducibly complex systems

Allow me to go snicker in the background a while.

Pray tell, give me an example of an "irreducibly complex" system that hasn't been debunked yet.

>>7

The same thing was said about the theory of gravity. Back then, the Earth's pull didn't make things fall, God did (lol intelligent falling). Religion has done nothing but hinder humanity's understanding of the world around it. Astronomers were thrown into prisons after admitting they didn't see heaven through telescopes. The Earth isn't held up by three large elephants, and the sun does indeed revolve around it. All these theories were suppressed by a few religious leaders who thought they knew better, and humanity is worse off because of them. This case is no different.

>>18
The direction of that argument would better suit SCIIIIEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE! but I will admit Darwinists have made good counter-cases on the topic. Now you are free to attack the rest of what I wrote.

>>17
What we need here, is SCIENCE.

We should stop teaching that the earth goes around the sun in schools, because it is a THEORY, NOT A FACT!

>>21
The Earth going around the sun is a LOT more obvious because we have photographic proof

>>22
durrrh. google image "archaeology" you fucking retard. Why are people even wasting time talking about this?

It's not Evolution vs Creationism, it's People Who Went To Highschool vs The Inbred.

>>23
Evolution is a theory that fits in very well with archaeological evidence but it is still a theory. It is not fact. Get that into you head. Evolution is good theory but it is still not fact.

>>24
i love how kids bash their heads against this "argument" over and over again. the fact that it hasn't been lawified by the sciencific community means absolutely nothing, because the single only reason that it cannot be proven scientifically is that THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT TAKES MILLENIA TO COLLECT AS THAT IS THE RATE AT WHICH EVOLUTION OCCURS, AND RESEARCH HAS ONLY BEGUN 200 YEARS AGO.

DURRRH REJECT AN IDEA UNTIL THERE IS INSURMOUNTABLE PROOF AND YOU'RE NOSE-DEEP IN SHIT, SORT OF LIKE WITH VIETNAM

Oh for god sake, all of you go read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. -_-

Newtonian gravitation was an excellent theory for years.  Until Einstein came along and pooped all over it with relativity, it was considered pretty much solid, as it fit the facts well enough in pretty much all circumstances.

Doesn't change the fact that it was /WRONG/.  Or maybe it was right, and Einstein was on crack.  We don't really know, do we?

The thing about theories is, they can't really be proven.  Only disproven.  And even then, they're usually just tweaked a bit to account for the new information.  Or extra theories are thrown into the mix to account for discrepencies.

Anyone remember ether?

Evolution is a /THEORY/.  Not a fact.  Until it can be proven, it can't be considered a fact.  There's plenty of gaps in evolutionary knowledge, mostly due to the thousands upon millions of years required to actually witness evolution.  Doesn't mean it's worthless, it just means it cannot and should not be considered the be-all and end-all of everything.

Intelligent Design, similarly, is a /THEORY/.  Again, it can't be proven.  It also hasn't been disproven.  Thus, it's a theory just like any other.  However, since there's no real tests to support or discredit it, it has no actual scientific merit (yet).  That does not make it /WRONG/.

>Intelligent Design, similarly, is a /THEORY/.

retard, don't read his post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

That does not make it /WRONG/.

Doesn't make it right either. We have plenty of evidence to support evolution, so we can have some degree of confidence in it. Furthermore, predictions can be made that can be tested. It may turn out to be wrong, but at least we have some evidence to support our confidence.

Creationism doesn't have any supporting evidence, nor does it make predictions. It's not a theory, except in the most vague colloquial sense, and most certainly doesn't belong in the same category as scientific theory. Get that through your dense heads.

I don't think that anyone in this thread said that Creationism should be taught alongside Theory of Evolution as equals.

I think maybe the teacher should allot a sentence or two to Intelligent Design (because schools are not religiously inclined) saying something to the effect of "There is a possibility that ID is true but evolution best explains what we see from archaelogy etc"

>>30
and that's different from saying "There is a possibility that a demon shit out two bricks, upon their fall they sparked together igniting LIGHT, which formed man by stimulating the fungus inside of the fece debris, BUT EVOLUTION MIGHT RIGHT TOO!!!" how?

ID is no different than any other totally "theory" totally devoid of logic or fact, except many religions hold it as opposed to just one- but that doesn't make it any less valid, unless you value honoring religion over honoring truth.

>>28
We're not in SCIIIIEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE! here.  We're actually allowed to speak English sometimes.  The common definition of 'theory' is perfectly reasonable in this context.

Why don't you argue against the points I raised, rather than semantics?

>We're not in SCIIIIEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE! here.

Wow. Just wow.

Every passing day it becomes clearer how futile it is to even attempt to battle idiocy, nay, this is 4chan.

You're an idiot, >>32.

This isn't semantics. The constant redefinition of terms is why ID promponents can have this ridiculous debate (and morons like you are the reason they get away with it).

You want ID on the same footing as science? Time to play ball.

>>1
Yes.

>>35
Shit, I didn't read the actual post.  To clarify, yes, evolution should be taught to everyone, creationism should not, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking retard and should kill themselves now.  End of discussion.

and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking retard and should kill themselves now

Natural selection in action!

>>37

Bwahaha!

Why not just add "Or maybe something or whatever just created all of it, who the fuck knows?!" at the end of the course? That should make everyone happy, right?

>>34
What redefiniton? ID is ID. I never saw other definitions.

>>40
he meant the 'debate terms' not the definition of ID.

That is, define: theory, law, etc. Once you define these things, you'll find that ID is nowhere near anything that might be considered to go into a textbook or teaching curriculum. In fact, you'd be better off lying to students rather than teaching them something that lacks any basic principles that make up a scientific theory.

This is modern day's flat-earth debate. Again, ask yourself: Which is more important, being right with God or right with science? If you can answer that, then you have your solution and there's really no debate to be had.

Doesn't have that much to do with being right with God. There are plenty of (real) scientists who believe too. The problem is the idiots who can't accept that, you know, the bible is just a book.

God and science are orthogonal. Science has nothing to say about God, since God isn't observable. Unfortunately, we're stuck with mental lightweights that are incapable of recognizing this, and want to push their agenda on everyone else. Because every word in the Bible is literally true.

If remember correctly in Scopes trial, William Jenning Bryan the great fundamentalist himself admitted to the bible have mistakes.

I think the big problem with teaching evolution has to do with the fact that there are many who do not teach it properly.  They push their opinion into it by claiming that evolution is a fact, not a theory and that it proves there is no God from the Christian theology.  This is bad since not only is it incorrect to pass theories off as fact, it is also forcing beliefs of atheism onto others, not allowing them to decide for themselves, a true bigot.  If evolution was taught correctly, stating that it is a theory and leaving out any idea that it is somehow supposed to disprove said God, which it actually doesn't do, then there is no problem.  If anything, I would be against teaching evolution until the public school teachers can figure out how to teach it correctly...unfortunately this is a long time since public school teachers aren't exactly bright people...

>William Jennings Bryan

The odd thing is that, fundamentalism notwithstanding, he also managed to be quite the progressive.

Evolution is a theory, and Creationism is a theory. As theories, they are both tentative explanations of natural phenomena.

However, Creationism, unlike Evolution, is not a SCIENTIFIC theory. That is, it can't disproven by the scientific method.

Creationism posits a creator, and says that it designed and created the universe. No amount of natural observations or scientific data can change this assertion because it's not based on observable data. It is based in religion, which asserts that the wonders of creation give glory to God. In other words, that the complexity of observed natural phenomena necessitates the existence of God. This is religious philosophy, not science.

OTOH, Evolution, as a theory based on observation of the changes in species of natural phenomena, CAN be disproven if new data to the contrary is acquired. Scientists may then modify or replace the current theory. Also, the theory is legitimated by its applications in Bioinformatics, fishery, agriculture, etc.

Since we are talking about what SCIENTIFIC theories should be taught in SCIENCE classes, Evolution wins, and Creationism fails.

Lol guys. Practically speaking, evolution is for all intents and purposes a FACT, not just a "THEORY". At this stage it cannot realistically be disproven anymore.

Perhaps humans have not evolved at all. For example, observe the behavior of George Bush.

Yes he is living proof of evolution.

>>48
Wow, such a cogent argument. I'm floored.