Should evolution be taught in schools?

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

>>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.