Skip to comments.Why We Must Teach Evolution in the Science Classroom [Ecumenical Thread]
Posted on 08/02/2008 5:57:18 PM PDT by Kevmo
Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:44:19 AM by Soliton
don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
What’s funny is that even the Answers in Genesis people fully embrace Natural Selection and changes over time within a species,
they just point out the fact that genetic information is LOST over time due to specialization and natural selection,
not GAINED as it has to be to go from molecules to man over billions of years.
The religion is Secular Humanism—God is supplanted with the glory of Man. Scientism is perhaps a sect within that religion, but it isn’t a religion unto itself. Allmendream’s posts should give us a clue ... probably very few true sceintists believe there is no God.
What did you learn in public school other than how to ditch class?
After I got out of high school, I had to take all the same classes over again as part of my undergraduate studies. So what good was my public high school education?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Also, this is an "ecumenical" thread on the RF, so antagonism is not allowed.
Click on my profile page for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
The theory of evolution is a theory.
The problem is not the theory itself, but the implications. Some folks object to the implications for religious reasons, and hence attack the theory using flawed science.
This, of course, annoys scientists who have a lot invested into the scientific method -- because it works.
So what do you expect them to do when the theory is attacked using flawed reasoning? And when they use the same flawed reasoning to promote their religion to school boards in the guise of science? Do you expect scientists to not be passionate about their work?
Should have pinged you when I referred to you. Sorry, bro. Don’t hose me!
You really need to get a life.
My objection had nothing to do with the poster, but that a duplicate thread was permitted in the RF in an effort to silence opposition.
However, I will stay off this thread from now on.
Awww, freepers don’t like whiners
***I understand that it looks like whining, but in reality it’s just a desire to see the discussion take place on a more civil plane. It’s been interesting so far. For instance, the religion mod disallowed the “wedge document” on a previous thread:
You missed my point. So called scientists, who forget scientific method, passionately adhere to a “belief system”, this theory, in denouncing all who are in opposition. I have encountered more than one who dared tell me that since the probability of any other explanation is so remote, inductive reasoning would suggest evolution to be fact - not theory.
Of course, intra-species evolution is fact. It has been observed and we have exploited it to develop breeds and strains of flora and fauna. It is the inter-species sort that is theoretical. Then to posit that as “The Origin of the Species” requires great faith against all odds.
You know what they ought to be teaching in schools? How to build a table, how to mow your lawn, how to trim a tree, how to change your oil, how to barbecue a steak, how to make a bed, how to shine your shoes, how to kick the crap out of a bully, how to shoot a home invader, how to change out a light fixture, how to play the guitar, how to frame a house, how to... be a productive human being.
Instead they teach these kids to read and write and then indoctrinate them in liberal theology and turn our children into left wing robots who have no clue about how to do anything other than complain and whine about global warming and peace.
What did you learn in public school other than how to ditch class? After I got out of high school, I had to take all the same classes over again as part of my undergraduate studies. So what good was my public high school education?
***Your public High School education was worthless. Here’s where I discuss that subject...
We have been discussing ways to fast track kids through high school to avoid the liberal agenda and other idiocies:
Proposal for the Free Republic High School Diploma.
I have been using the tag chspe to remind myself & others about the articles that have discussed this approach.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending Ken Ham or AIG; I agree that Creationism is not science, because it's impossible to test it against empirical evidence. You can't design an experiment that will prove or disprove the idea; it's more of a worldview than anything else.
But. I have yet to hear a convincing case made that evolution - meaning all current life having descended from, basically, non-life - is any different. I know that natural selection and change within species are easily verifiable/falsifiable concepts.
But how do you design an experiment to prove - or disprove - that we descended from apes, or that birds descended from early reptiles, or that microbes formed from non-living soup? How is that not just as much a worldview (or a religion, for that matter) as Creationism? How does it conform to the scientific method any better than Creationism does?
I know it doesn't invoke God, but it seems to invoke Chance in the same manner; it seems to have little to do with the scientific method, and therefore little to do with science.
I'm interested in hearing where my logic goes wrong here.
The theory of evolution is a theory. The problem is not the theory itself, but the implications. Some folks object to the implications for religious reasons, and hence attack the theory using flawed science. This, of course, annoys scientists who have a lot invested into the scientific method — because it works. So what do you expect them to do when the theory is attacked using flawed reasoning?
***Thanks for this excellent synopsis. What I would expect is that the scientists would simply point out the scientific flaws and leave it at that.
And when they use the same flawed reasoning to promote their religion to school boards in the guise of science?
***This, really is what kinda gets to the heart of the controversy in America. Personally, I find that perspective is what needs to be worked on first, and from my perspective it is such Freepers as Betty Boop and Alamo-Girl who have it right. They wrote a book on this subject and it is excellent.
Do you expect scientists to not be passionate about their work?
***My first venture onto the crevo threads was over the education requirements and philosophy, triggered by George Bush’s comment that “both sides” of the controversy should be taught. Prior to that, I stayed away from the crevo threads because there was simply too much vitriol, endless flame wars upon flame wars. I was actually asked to NOT post in evolution threads by one poster. That was because of my position that I considered this to be a policy topic and I didn’t want to get into the nuts & bolts of debating the finer scientific points of the controversy. Anyways, this is a roundabout way of coming to my point, which is that I have noticed there is a bit more going on than scientists being “passionate about their work”. If such were the case, why would scientists object to both sides being taught in philosophy courses? Why do so many insist that ONLY evolution be taught in such courses? It’s because scientism is becoming a religion.
I have encountered more than one who dared tell me that since the probability of any other explanation is so remote, inductive reasoning would suggest evolution to be fact - not theory.
***You can add one more data point to your collection. I also have encountered more than one who said the same thing.
in an effort to silence opposition.
***Wrong. It is an effort to have more civil discussion on the topic.
that birds descended from early reptiles,
***Well, there’s the fascinating DNA experiments that have been going on.
Protein extracted from 68 million-year-old T. rex bones has shed new light on the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.
“I have encountered more than one who dared tell me that since the probability of any other explanation is so remote, inductive reasoning would suggest evolution to be fact - not theory.
***You can add one more data point to your collection. I also have encountered more than one who said the same thing.”
This sort of behavior cannot be defended by scientific method. It is prosyltizing toward a belief system, a religion of sorts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.