Should evolution be taught in schools?

NoQuarter

Lets hear what the experts have to say first....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdAe3UAIVs

JohnMarston

NoQuarter wrote: »

Lets hear what the experts have to say first....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdAe3UAIVs

Schools should teach neither, or both theories

FLOOPER

NoQuarter wrote: »

Should evolution be thought in schools?

Let's get reading and writing perfected first.

2Scoops

JohnMarston wrote: »

Schools should teach neither, or both theories

That presupposes that there are only two possibilities. :pac:

A further complication is that evolution by natural selection is supported by tangible evidence while faith-based alternatives are not. This means they are unsuitable for being taught in a 'science' class, but are quite suitable for a religious studies class (for example).

Nolanger

Schools should devote more hours each week to the science subjects over religion.

IrishKnight

Yes. Well that was easy...

I should say if you want to talk more about it, head over to the Atheist section of the site, major thread were the user JC is defending creationism, including that CO wasn't there or Adam and Eve had some method of not being killed by it...

NoQuarter

I had actually hoped for a thread ripping the p1ss out of the video! Didn't know Biologists were so boring serious.

IrishKnight

NoQuarter wrote: »

I had actually hoped for a thread ripping the p1ss out of the video!

The video does that itself!

Orizio

JohnMarston wrote: »

Schools should teach neither, or both theories

...except that one of those 'theories' isn't a theory and I'm pretty against our children being taught unproven nonsense when they should be focusing on Math, Science, writing, reading, sports etc.

Anyway, evolution should be taught in secondary schools the country over.

SparKing

Ah lads, we don't live in the US, I'm pretty sure it is taught in Ireland, I went to a Catholic school and Religion classes were a non-subject, it was just a doss.

Turtwig

Hang on! I'm offended by this. You biologists want to teach your alternative theories, but what about us physicists why can't we teach ours? I mean the D.S.T theory is so revolutionary and so mind boggling that it throws physics as we know it out the window altogether! Yet those so-called mainstream physicists can't even accept it. It's a religion I tell ya! Teach the kids both sides, I say!

Capt'n Midnight

2Scoops wrote: »

That presupposes that there are only two possibilities. :pac:

Until creationists , and I'm including Muslims and other religions in this, can agree on the date of creation (because otherwise then at least one of them would be wrong) schools should teach evolution and either FSM or Arkleseizure theory.

Many religions believe in different creation myths. Forgetting about the science debate, you can't really justify teaching it to someone who has different religious beliefs. I've no problem teaching religion in classes, but only to someone of that religion.


And if anyone doubts the selective pressures Elephants are loosing their tusks
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article545155.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm

10 years for lizards to become vegaterains :eek:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

worms handling arsenic left from the industrial revolution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081007-super-worms.html

JohnMarston

I revise my opinion, there's enough to learn in a leaving cert besides learning evolution or creation.

Bloody Nipples

JohnMarston wrote: »

I revise my opinion, there's enough to learn in a leaving cert besides learning evolution or creation.

Except that evolution is an intrinsic, scientifically-accepted account of how life developed and is developing on Earth. It's fundamental to biology so why would it not be part of the course?

I'd agree with you on creationism though.

GLaDOS

JohnMarston wrote: »

I revise my opinion, there's enough to learn in a leaving cert besides learning evolution or creation.

Evolution is part of the biology LC

JohnMarston

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Evolution is part of the biology LC

I know, i done it not 5 years ago.

Bloody Nipples

JohnMarston wrote: »

I know, i done it not 5 years ago.

And is it that you think it's just some kind of unproven theory or something? It's just you mentioned it shouldn't be taught but I'm just wondering what your viewpoint is.

JohnMarston

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

And is it that you think it's just some kind of unproven theory or something? It's just you mentioned it shouldn't be taught but I'm just wondering what your viewpoint is.

I don't believe its proven. But i don't believe the people who say the world was made in six days either. For me, there's too much natural order to assume its just chance

Turtwig

JohnMarston wrote: »

to assume its just chance

Right you're in the biology forum and you just committed probably the greatest cardinal sin ever! Just warning you!

It's not chance. You, pardon the pun, most likely need to go back to the books.
(Oh and while you're at it you could probably read up on a little philosophy of science and what a theory has to be. Hint : Can any theory be proven?)

Blackhorse Slim

JohnMarston wrote: »

I don't believe its proven. But i don't believe the people who say the world was made in six days either. For me, there's too much natural order to assume its just chance

Think of it like gravity.

Gravity exists, it is a demonstrable fact. The Theory of Gravity is an attempt to explain how it works, and is open to challenge and revision.

Evolution exists, it is a demonstrable fact. The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain how it works, and is open to challenge and revision.

Bloody Nipples

JohnMarston wrote: »

I don't believe its proven. But i don't believe the people who say the world was made in six days either. For me, there's too much natural order to assume its just chance

Look at the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, I'm sure you've heard of MRSA, that's evolution.

We can see it occurring over time, we know it's there, we have all the evidence of it's existence.

No offence but if you'd ever studied it, you'd know there's absolutely 100% no doubt that it exists and is happening as we speak.

Mr. Boo

What is this 'natural order'?

MUSEIST

Evolution is fact, it can be obseved in a laboratory with bacteria and things like drosophila (spelling???) flies. So that is not even in question.

Evolution is taught in LC biology but I would not expect it to be taught in religion as it has nothing to do with that. Thankfully we don't live in the u.s and actual scientific theories can be taught in our schools without offending some "simple" people.

cookie1977

On the subject of the video. I think Bill Maher sums it up best for me:
"If I cared about the uninformed opinions of some ditsy beauty queens, I'd join the tea party"

Kwekubo

I did biology for LC and we were never taught about evolution. I copped onto the fact and asked my teacher on the day of our last class. She said it was a deliberate omission on the part of the school, the course was too long to cover everything so they decided to leave evolution out.

Given that biology as a whole doesn't make sense unless you understand evolution, in retrospect it was absolutely scandalous, and I only came to appreciate this years later once I learned about evolution for myself. I wouldn't be surprised if the religious order running the school had a hand in it.

Zombrex

JohnMarston wrote: »

I don't believe its proven. But i don't believe the people who say the world was made in six days either. For me, there's too much natural order to assume its just chance

Its not by chance, it is by Darwinian evolution. This produces order out of random events through a process of selection. "Too much natural order" is not a counter to Darwinian evolution, it is the evidence for it in the first place.

Capt'n Midnight

Don't forget that you can have change without evolution.

If there is no pressure for selection then you can have random genetic drift due to chance. In each generation there is a 50:50 chance of inheriting eiher DNA strand. But it's rarely exactly 50:50 it could be 499:501 and then 503:497 on the next. But if it stays over 50% for a few generations then one DNA strand and it's genes becomes more common, and over time the other strand may become extinct.

It's fairly simple to show with a computer program but a little counter intuitive, the easiest way of thinking of it is that the number of individuals could be similar to the number of generations.

An example of something that there is no Darwinian selection could be something like eye colour, in a colour blind species.

Add in things like crossing over and random mutations and you don't need evolutionary pressure to generate new species. It's just a lot faster and a lot less random when there is selective pressure.

nozzferrahhtoo

JohnMarston wrote: »

For me, there's too much natural order to assume its just chance

Lucky for us therefore that there are no serious evolutionary scientists who claim that it is all just chance. If anyone out there tells you that evolution is all about "just chance" then all they are telling you is that they not only do not understand Evolutionary Theory as a whole.... but that they do not even understand the first 101 basics on the subject.

If this is what your Science Teacher in school taught you, then you need to go back to that teacher and tell them to go back to the books, before doing so yourself because either that teacher taught you rubbish by error, or you were lied to and/or conned.

There really is no other Theories out there to be taught, so I am not sure what you mean by “both” exactly. There is no opposing Theory. There are people opposed to evolution, but none of them have a counter Theory. Their entire approach is that if they can prove evolution wrong then whatever they make up randomly in it’s place will be “right” by default.

What’s worse is that some people on the debating circuit on this very issue openly admit that this is their plan and approach. There are people who stand up on stage and openly say that they have no Theory. They have no Lesson Plan. They have no evidence. But that if they can falsify evolution then their own idea… whatever it might be… should get into the schools automatically, or be considered validated automatically…. Solely by their negation of Evolution.

Where they get the idea that one idea is right solely because another different idea is wrong is beyond me. Problem is that even if it WERE so, they have entirely failed to attack or falsify any aspect of current evolutionary Theory… at… all. I hark back to well know Creationist William A. Dembski who predicted the death of the scientific inquiry around Molecular Evolution in "the next 5 years". He made that prediction in 2004. It is 2011 now and that area of inquiry has exploded and is stronger than ever.

So yes. Evolution should be taught in schools. And no. Nothing else should be taught in parallel to it as a counter Theory, because there IS no such counter Theory.

bryaner

Why not..

lenny72

excellent video to illustrate how america is de-volving!! i love how people describe evolution as an idea, or a theory (in the thought / idea sense) - that's like saying gravity is an idea, that some scientists came up with!! keep religion out of science class and do already confused kids a favour.

steddyeddy

I cant think of a good reason why it shouldnt be taught in schools.