Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Blue]

One of the posts I made somewhere on this thread I believe I said something along the lines of "Either God created everything, or Everything organized itself out of nothing."

 

But to be on the topic, I will reiterate what I have said in the past:

Personally I don't think the origin of the universe needs be taught in school since there appears to be such controversy over it, and saying that it should be taught in school is just a proxy war for Creationism vs. the Big Bang Theory.

A fight which should be fought by professors in universities, not teachers, parents and politicians in school board meetings. Or teenagers on a forum, for that matter.

 

It is either the prejudices or personal intrigues of individuals frequenting this thread that repeatedly changes the subject to the historical context, credibility and moral/social strength of Christianity or details and confusions regarding the Science that governs Big Bang and/or Evolutionary theory.

[Flyingamerboy]

perhaps schools should create websites for evolution and creation then ask the pupils to chose which website they would prefer to learn about.

[Blue]

While we're imagining this ideal system to govern a set of schools, mayhaps the origin of preference would be taught by the responsible and well-informed parents of the child instead.

[Axeldeath]

responsible and well-informed parents

 

Not going to happen.

[BTGBullseye]

responsible and well-informed parents

 

Not going to happen.

Unfortunately this is true.

 

The responsible and well informed ones are always in the working class, and unable to get off work.

[Blue]

Which is why it's just as far fetched as a government being able to properly educate children in the manner which we are opinionating they should, in ideal conditions.

This thread with me around earlier probably would have been much shorter. It would be longer still were it not attached to the definition "being taught in schools" in the title.

[BTGBullseye]

Indeed.

[danielsangeo]

Personally I don't think the origin of the universe needs be taught in school since there appears to be such controversy over it

 

I don't think there is any controversy at all regarding the teaching of the origin of the universe (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way). Is there a controversy over who built the pyramids? How about a controversy over whether there's four elements (air, water, fire, earth) or over 100 (including gold and mercury)? Or perhaps a controversy over whether the planets and sun revolve around the Earth? Or whether it's turtles all the way down?

 

That's the thing I'm trying to point out here. There is no controversy. There is that which is in evidence and there is that which isn't in evidence. I do not want children being taught that the moon landing may have been faked or that lead can be turned into gold by the process of alchemy. There is no controversy here.

[ProHypster]

Personally I don't think the origin of the universe needs be taught in school since there appears to be such controversy over it

 

I don't think there is any controversy at all regarding the teaching of the origin of the universe (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way). Is there a controversy over who built the pyramids? How about a controversy over whether there's four elements (air, water, fire, earth) or over 100 (including gold and mercury)? Or perhaps a controversy over whether the planets and sun revolve around the Earth? Or whether it's turtles all the way down?

 

That's the thing I'm trying to point out here. There is no controversy. There is that which is in evidence and there is that which isn't in evidence. I do not want children being taught that the moon landing may have been faked or that lead can be turned into gold by the process of alchemy. There is no controversy here.

 

Now we don't know the latter two for sure respectufully..... I mean chances are 99999/1 for moon landing and 5/1 for lead into gold alchemy possibility.

 

Origin of Universe is highly controversial, I don't understand you there. Do you know for a fact how our universe was created or something???? I mean this is kind of stupid don't ya think, I know we go for the best theory but we don't have much info on the best theory in this case. Why would you teach children about a particular theory because some guy saw rays and the other measured them and a third calculated their life span... it's too weak.

 

If you do teach this I would encourage pointing out: "We don't know how the hell our universe started but this is our best shot with the best evidence most scientists agree on, got" (This is offtopic and has nothing to do with evolution)

[Blue]

There is no controversy here.

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion.

 

There has been public debate about why and where the universe came from for more than four thousand years, it's been a contested subject ever since man could keep records.

 

To declare that the debate does not exist is the claim of a fool.

To declare that this debate is over is a fantastic and exorbitantly titanic statement which I would absolutely love to see proof of. -And don't just cite the arguments of evolutionary theory, because then we're back to what I said earlier about the contesting of ideas of Philosophers/Historians/Scientists Vs. Internet Forums.

 

Either way, it's still an intentional derailment of the subject of either being in schools in order to prolong arguments on this thread, and if there's one thing I could go on the record saying I hate, it's debating for the sake of debating.

[The Giant Napkin]

So, it's about why evolution theory should be taught in schools, and not creationism? I love these kinds of discussions and I'll have to guiltily admit that I didn't read all 33 pages (perhaps I will later) but I would like to join in this .

 

The essence of school is being taught knowledge that will help you in your later working life. The model in which this 'knowledge' is conceived and taught, is the model of science. I will not say science and religion are mutually exclusive, but there is an important difference that has been cited before: science rests on empiristic 'facts' and tries to put these in a model/theory to explain them, whereas religion comes from 'faith' meaning there is no way to (dis)prove it using the scientific model. Again, I am not saying that means either what science says or what religion says is mutually exclusive, nor that either is true or false. It's simply a model to understand the world around us.

 

So, without saying that either creationism or evolution is true (or, as I believe Alyxxx said on the first page, sounds logical/makes sense), can we agree that the evolution theory fits in the scientific model (because really there are very little scientists who still dispute the evolution theory, because in science it is the most logical and simple (Ockham's razor) theory/model to explain the empiristic facts)? Creationism, as it is a part of religion and therefore rests on 'faith', can not be (dis)proven using the scientific model.

 

I think you can understand what I'm getting at. Because the evolution theory is part of the model which we use to achieve 'knowledge', it is this theory which is taught at school. If it will be disproven scientifically later, the theory will change or a new theory to explain the new findings will be conceived. (Compare modern quantum theories which are also taught at school, but still prone to changes and revisions depending on current research) Creationism, however, rests on a basis of faith, not science. That doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. But in our working lives and therefore at school, knowledge is treated scientifically, and therefore we use the scientific theory of evolution.

 

So, in short, the evolution theory is science, the other theories, such as Creationism, are not. Does that mean Evolution (or, as a reaction to the other topics here, the creation of the world) is the right answer? Not necessarily. But it is the generally accepted answer in our current model for knowledge. Therefore it is the theory we work with.

 

(EDIT: in response to the 'controversy', I just want to stress again that in the scientific model, the 'controversy' only means that a theory can change over time, which is what happens with any scientific theory. However, this change is due to scientific evidence, and therefore danielsangeo is right in so far as that controversy because of (mostly) religious claims (such as creationism) is not taken into consideration in the scientific model)

[Blue]

Changing knowledge is also why we don't watch Duck and Cover in school anymore. (We watch The Atomic Cafe xD)

I like many bombs not dropping on my head.

[danielsangeo]

There is no controversy here.

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion.

 

It's not an opinion, though.

 

To declare that this debate is over is a fantastic and exorbitantly titanic statement which I would absolutely love to see proof of. -And don't just cite the arguments of evolutionary theory, because then we're back to what I said earlier about the contesting of ideas of Philosophers/Historians/Scientists Vs. Internet Forums.

 

Either way, it's still an intentional derailment of the subject of either being in schools in order to prolong arguments on this thread, and if there's one thing I could go on the record saying I hate, it's debating for the sake of debating.

 

One side uses evidence and there is a lot of it (Big Bang Theory). The other side....well....has a story with no evidence whatsoever (Creationism). One only needs to research both subjects to see that there's absolutely no evidence of creationism and loads of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. There is debate, but it's over whether a camera works by light being exposed on a surface that 'copies' the photo to a negative or to a memory card...............or an imp living in the camera painting the pictures.

 

We have evidence on how a camera works. We don't have evidence of a picture painting imp.

We have evidence on how the Big Bang happened. We don't have evidence of a creator deity.

[alphabetagamma]

One side uses evidence and there is a lot of it (Big Bang Theory). The other side....well....has a story with no evidence whatsoever (Creationism). One only needs to research both subjects to see that there's absolutely no evidence of creationism and loads of evidence for the Big Bang Theory.

Have you ever heard the quote "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."? Our ideas about how the universe works will always be "theories" because there will always be another explanation and that's part of the nature of science.

 

On the people treating god as if he was scientifically provable, that makes no sense. If an omnipotent entity wanted to conceal itself, to continue the need for faith, how could you possibly test it?

 

Finally, god and the Big Bang theory aren't incompatible. Why would it be impossible for a god to cause the big bang?

 

Jeez these posts are getting really redundant. I guess it just goes to show how far internet debate really gets.

[ProHypster]

There is no controversy here.

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion.

 

It's not an opinion, though.

 

To declare that this debate is over is a fantastic and exorbitantly titanic statement which I would absolutely love to see proof of. -And don't just cite the arguments of evolutionary theory, because then we're back to what I said earlier about the contesting of ideas of Philosophers/Historians/Scientists Vs. Internet Forums.

 

Either way, it's still an intentional derailment of the subject of either being in schools in order to prolong arguments on this thread, and if there's one thing I could go on the record saying I hate, it's debating for the sake of debating.

 

One side uses evidence and there is a lot of it (Big Bang Theory). The other side....well....has a story with no evidence whatsoever (Creationism). One only needs to research both subjects to see that there's absolutely no evidence of creationism and loads of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. There is debate, but it's over whether a camera works by light being exposed on a surface that 'copies' the photo to a negative or to a memory card...............or an imp living in the camera painting the pictures.

 

We have evidence on how a camera works. We don't have evidence of a picture painting imp.

We have evidence on how the Big Bang happened. We don't have evidence of a creator deity.

 

If you believe that the Big Bang theory is a common fact that everyone should know then you really are a fool as Blue said it.

I'm not saying that creationalism is right either. But that's not the ONLY valid theories there is, is there now? I think by now we all agree that the universe was created illogically or at least not by the laws of nature we have today. Otherwise, tell me a logical beginning where I can't ask a question and brings back to illogical against our laws of nature things, I really want to hear it, my ears are open. My point is if our universe started illogically and we all agree then you can just make a matrix of all the possibilities and pick a theory by chance, they will all be the same chance really.

 

We can calculate things close to the beginning of the universe, but the actual beginning has really no logical explanation. At least 10.000 years went by as civilization tried to explain it, not theorists, not philosophers nor scientists even could think of one possibility that makes sense.

[danielsangeo]

If you believe that the Big Bang theory is a common fact that everyone should know then you really are a fool as Blue said it.

 

The Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have to date for the evidence we see.

 

I'm not saying that creationalism is right either. But that's not the ONLY valid theories there is, is there now?

 

Creationism is not a valid theory at all. In fact, it's not a theory at all. There's absolutely no evidence for it.

 

I think by now we all agree that the universe was created illogically or at least not by the laws of nature we have today. Otherwise, tell me a logical beginning where I can't ask a question and brings back to illogical against our laws of nature things, I really want to hear it, my ears are open.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're saying here.

 

My point is if our universe started illogically and we all agree then you can just make a matrix of all the possibilities and pick a theory by chance, they will all be the same chance really.

 

Not really. Pick the one that has the preponderance of the evidence.

 

We can calculate things close to the beginning of the universe, but the actual beginning has really no logical explanation. At least 10.000 years went by as civilization tried to explain it, not theorists, not philosophers nor scientists even could think of one possibility that makes sense.

 

So, because we can't currently explain it, therefore, it has to be a creator deity? C'mon. If you didn't know how rain formed, does that mean that all hypotheses about how it forms are valid including "God crying"? And we should teach our children that thunder is "God bowling" with equal validity as what lightning is?

 

No, if you're going to teach this kind of thing (something other than what is in evidence) in school, do it in a class that it's meant for, such as a "comparative religions" class. Not in science.

[alphabetagamma]

The Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have to date for the evidence we see.

But that's just your opinion. I know others share it, including me, but others may not.

Creationism is not a valid theory at all. In fact' date=' it's not a theory at all. There's absolutely no evidence for it.[/quote']Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So' date=' because we can't currently explain it, therefore, it has to be a creator deity? C'mon. If you didn't know how rain formed, does that mean that all hypotheses about how it forms are valid including "God crying"? And we should teach our children that thunder is "God bowling" with equal validity as what lightning is?

 

No, if you're going to teach this kind of thing (something other than what is in evidence) in school, do it in a class that it's meant for, such as a "comparative religions" class. Not in science.[/quote']Firstly, no one teaches that rain is "God crying", if you think that over 95% of people in this world are stupid enough to believe that, you're sadly mistaken. Secondly, I'm not sure why you keep citing the Big Bang theory as if it precludes the existence of a god.

No, if you're going to teach this kind of thing (something other than what is in evidence) in school, do it in a class that it's meant for, such as a "comparative religions" class. Not in science.

I agree.

[ProHypster]

Why do you believe that I am speaking for creationalism right now, well how about this, right now I'm speaking for all the other theories there about the beginning of the universe which isn't creationalism or the big bang theory. I think they deserve a shot, don't you? That is actually the truth.

 

Secondly, there is no scientific theory for the beginning of the universe. There is not any scientific theory with any evidence of what the trigger was that created the universe, therefore all theories are accepted, this is beyond just calculation and observation.

 

So, because we can't currently explain it, therefore, it has to be a creator deity? C'mon. If you didn't know how rain formed, does that mean that all hypotheses about how it forms are valid including "God crying"? And we should teach our children that thunder is "God bowling" with equal validity as what lightning is?

 

So? Just because ultraviolet rays were not visible or in any way felt by humans in their life time 100 years ago, they didn''t exist. Again I'm not talking about god, can you get it in your mind that there is at least 1000 more theories about the beggining of the world or you think all of that is bullshit and there is only two, one true one, one false one?

ahaha, the world would be so simple if that was true.

 

Why do you always stick to the opinion of MOST scientists? It's arguably not the right people to choose as a teacher.

 

Newton, Darwin and most other breakthrough scientists were part of a small minority of scientists when they published their theories.

 

Also, the Big Bang's theory foundation is that the world triggered itself when there was no time, correct? That is illogical, against our laws of physics, if the best theory we can provide is based on illogical triggers, then all theories can not be possibly worse then this one, and I do understand that the big bang theory might have more information then other theories, but more info doesn't mean better info.

[danielsangeo]

Apologies for the big posting that follows.

 

The Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have to date for the evidence we see.

But that's just your opinion. I know others share it, including me, but others may not.

 

No, it's not an opinion. That's a fact.

 

Creationism is not a valid theory at all. In fact, it's not a theory at all. There's absolutely no evidence for it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.

 

So, because we can't currently explain it, therefore, it has to be a creator deity? C'mon. If you didn't know how rain formed, does that mean that all hypotheses about how it forms are valid including "God crying"? And we should teach our children that thunder is "God bowling" with equal validity as what lightning is?

 

No, if you're going to teach this kind of thing (something other than what is in evidence) in school, do it in a class that it's meant for, such as a "comparative religions" class. Not in science.

Firstly, no one teaches that rain is "God crying", if you think that over 95% of people in this world are stupid enough to believe that, you're sadly mistaken.

 

You miss my point. Creationism and "God crying" are identical in amount of evidence. If someone believes that "God is crying" when it rains, it's no more "stupid" than a belief in a deity at all, is it?

 

Secondly, I'm not sure why you keep citing the Big Bang theory as if it precludes the existence of a god.

 

I didn't say that. There's just no evidence of a god.

 

Why do you believe that I am speaking for creationalism right now, well how about this, right now I'm speaking for all the other theories there about the beginning of the universe which isn't creationalism or the big bang theory. I think they deserve a shot, don't you? That is actually the truth.

 

Which ones have evidence for them?

 

Secondly, there is no scientific theory for the beginning of the universe. There is not any scientific theory with any evidence of what the trigger was that created the universe, therefore all theories are accepted, this is beyond just calculation and observation.

 

Incorrect. There is a theory for the beginning of the universe. It's called "The Big Bang Theory". Surely you've heard of it.

 

So, because we can't currently explain it, therefore, it has to be a creator deity? C'mon. If you didn't know how rain formed, does that mean that all hypotheses about how it forms are valid including "God crying"? And we should teach our children that thunder is "God bowling" with equal validity as what lightning is?

 

So? Just because ultraviolet rays were not visible or in any way felt by humans in their life time 100 years ago, they didn''t exist.

 

Yet you can detect such.

 

Again I'm not talking about god, can you get it in your mind that there is at least 1000 more theories about the beggining of the world

 

For example?

 

or you think all of that is bullshit and there is only two, one true one, one false one?

ahaha, the world would be so simple if that was true.

 

I'll stick to the ones that have evidence, thank you.

 

Why do you always stick to the opinion of MOST scientists? It's arguably not the right people to choose as a teacher.

 

Why not?

 

Newton, Darwin and most other breakthrough scientists were part of a small minority of scientists when they published their theories.

 

And they had evidence to back up their assertions.

 

Also, the Big Bang's theory foundation is that the world triggered itself when there was no time, correct?

 

Not quite. The world came into existence long after the Big Bang.

 

That is illogical, against our laws of physics, if the best theory we can provide is based on illogical triggers,

 

I'm sorry, what makes it illogical?

 

then all theories can not be possibly worse then this one, and I do understand that the big bang theory might have more information then other theories, but more info doesn't mean better info.

 

But no info is worse.

[ProHypster]

But no info is worse.

 

1. More info is sometimes worse then no info.

 

And they had evidence to back up their assertions.

 

2. Are you kidding, Darwin and Newton had no evidence of their theories at the time. Einstein had no evidence of his theories, it just works.

 

For example?

 

3. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_different_theories_about_the_universe

 

What makes it illogical?

 

4. Many things, everything exapnding without a trigger, time not existing while it was expanding.... imagine what this theory looks like.