U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2011, 12:14 AM
 
2,969 posts, read 2,317,513 times
Reputation: 3098
You never hear creationists say "it's only a theory" about any other branch of science except evolution.

And yet they accept other branches of science with no problem in spite of the theories contained in them.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2011, 05:21 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
7,758 posts, read 4,295,289 times
Reputation: 6299
Creationists who take comfort in saying "it's only a theory" probably don't understand what goes into a scientific theory. Nobody said that evolution was 100% irrefutable fact, but there is some scientific method behind it - unlike opting for completely unscientific fairy tales instead. This is why evolution should be presented within the context of a science class and fairy tales should be reserved for some different forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2011, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
738 posts, read 863,628 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
I'm ok with teaching evolution in school. I don't see the problem. Even for those of the religious persuasion:
1) Creationism and evolution can coexist (You could just say "God made it to be this way")
2) Is the Creationist argument so weak that parents are afraid of how to tackle evolution and "explain it away?"


And as for the "Well, evolution is only a THEORY" crowd, not only is that the weakest argument against evolution, it plays on the actual word theory as if that's the crux of the argument.

So, for those that want to mince words with theory, here are some other theories that you have no problem accepting:

- Atomic theory: its what boils down to the periodic table of elements which is what chemist use to create all sorts of stuff we use in everyday life. And let us not also forget that some percentage of your electricity is generated by a nuclear power plant somewhere. I guess that's just random luck and that power is generated out of thin air.

- Circuit theory: Your computer? Just turn it off. Apparently, what engineers used to make every electronic gadget could be bogus. Your computer either operates within the realm of electrical theory... or... I don't know... maybe someone in the anti-theory crowd can explain how it works.

- Signals theory: Just think of your cell phone (for starters). How about your DirectTV or cable? I can't even begin to list the things that would not "be" if we did not have signals theory...

That's just a short short list.

Theories are the basic building blocks of science. Theories are thrown out or altered when proved to be wrong. They are only meant to describe the physical world around us and it put it into terms that we can then use to improve them. Many theories have been proven wrong.

One in more recent times was Newton's laws of motion. They were right, except in some circumstances. So it was altered by Einstein. It doesn't mean all the work done by Newton was wrong, only that his "laws" weren't entirely right. So, they were improved upon.

This isn't Ancient Greece where humans just looked to the heavens for explanations for things dealt with in every day life. We have solid explanations for much of it. Not all, but I think evolution falls into the category of "We have enough evidence to make a scientific framework that probably brings us 99% of the way to the truth." And if you disagree, stop using your cell phone to connect to the internet to post on city-data. Those are all theories that aren't "Laws."
Repped and quoted for truth. Christians who have no acceptable working knowledge of evolution (or the Big Bang Theory, or anything that's "textbook" science for that matter) yet staunchly disagree, should not be picking and choosing what scientific theories they are willing to lend credibility to. I routinely encounter Christians who, on one hand, admit that they no nothing about evolution yet completely dismiss it.

Science is not an entity. It's not a belief system. You can't pick and choose the scientific findings you're OK with, yet be against those other findings that derived from the same scientific methods that are behind the theories employed in everyday technology. Especially when your scientific knowledge is zilch to beign with. The fact these emotion-based arguments against science even exist are an attempt to stifle intellectual progress and it's extremely embarrassing that a developed country in 2011 still experiences this. Unfortunately, this is not the first time religion sought to limit scientific inquiry and it certainly won't be the last.

Thankfully, at least we're not sacrificing goats to attempt to cure the common cold .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2011, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,466 posts, read 5,047,810 times
Reputation: 2713
This is Great Debates people, not Politics and other controversies. What goes there does not necessarily fly in this forum.

In addition to the TOS you are required to read and adhere to the special rules and guidelines for the Great Debates forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 11:03 PM
 
1,914 posts, read 2,209,398 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
Should evolution be thought in public schools in the U.S.? I think it should. Tell what your honest opinion is.
No because it keeps changing every year and can't explain the origins of life or meaning of life. It cannot explain the 1st atom that caused the big bang or how matter came from nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 05:30 AM
 
5,157 posts, read 1,847,511 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay100 View Post
No because it keeps changing every year
What has this got to do with anything? School text books are constantly being corrected and updated with the changing and updating of our current information in the world. If you took things out of school just because they keep changing you would end up teaching very little.

This is not limited to the sciences either. We are constantly making new discovering in Geography and History, while the wealth of human literature is also increasing and opinions changing on past literature.

And that is all without mentioning the fact that teaching standards and methodologies themselves are being updated which cause reflective changes in the curriculum.

The school curriculum is not, nor should it be, a set in stone fixed entity which never changes year on year, but a growing and evolving set of standards that changes in response to changing human knowledge and changing teaching methodologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay100 View Post
can't explain the origins of life or meaning of life. It cannot explain the 1st atom that caused the big bang or how matter came from nothing.
So what? It is not meant to.

It also does not tell you the capital city of Lithuania, nor how to bake a cake, nor how to play football. Why? Because those things are nothing to DO with evolution. Nor are the origins of life or any imagined "meaning" of life. You can not negate the teaching of a subject solely because it does not teach something that is nothing to do with that subject. If you want to know about the origins of life, then look elsewhere because it has nothing to do with evolution.

If we applied this line of thinking to schools we would not teach anything. Chemistry? That doesn't tell you why 2+2=4 so out with chemistry. Mathematics? That doesn't tell you the atomic structure of lead. So out with mathematics. Football? No get that out of schools because it does not teach you how to bake cake.

This line of reasoning that you cut something out of schools because it does not teach something it has nothing to do with is seriously flawed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 11:11 AM
 
1,914 posts, read 2,209,398 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
What has this got to do with anything? School text books are constantly being corrected and updated with the changing and updating of our current information in the world. If you took things out of school just because they keep changing you would end up teaching very little.

This is not limited to the sciences either. We are constantly making new discovering in Geography and History, while the wealth of human literature is also increasing and opinions changing on past literature.

And that is all without mentioning the fact that teaching standards and methodologies themselves are being updated which cause reflective changes in the curriculum.

The school curriculum is not, nor should it be, a set in stone fixed entity which never changes year on year, but a growing and evolving set of standards that changes in response to changing human knowledge and changing teaching methodologies.



So what? It is not meant to.

It also does not tell you the capital city of Lithuania, nor how to bake a cake, nor how to play football. Why? Because those things are nothing to DO with evolution. Nor are the origins of life or any imagined "meaning" of life. You can not negate the teaching of a subject solely because it does not teach something that is nothing to do with that subject. If you want to know about the origins of life, then look elsewhere because it has nothing to do with evolution.

If we applied this line of thinking to schools we would not teach anything. Chemistry? That doesn't tell you why 2+2=4 so out with chemistry. Mathematics? That doesn't tell you the atomic structure of lead. So out with mathematics. Football? No get that out of schools because it does not teach you how to bake cake.

This line of reasoning that you cut something out of schools because it does not teach something it has nothing to do with is seriously flawed.
If it isn't true, then, don't "teach" it! Moderator cut: No personal attacks

Until you can explain how matter comes from nothing and the meaning of life itself, you might as well save your breath.

Last edited by TheViking85; 11-23-2011 at 01:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Michigan--good on the rocks
2,544 posts, read 2,074,060 times
Reputation: 1887
This should not even be a question. Evolution is taught, as it should be. If you try to force your religious beliefs down my kids throats and even better yet try to pass it off as equally valid with evolution as scientific theory, then there will be a real problem. Teach your creationism in church where it belongs.

I feel very bad for the students in Mississippi who are denied a legitimate education. They have no chance.

Last edited by stanman13; 11-22-2011 at 06:53 PM.. Reason: typo. stupid mobile device. why won't it evolve?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 01:06 AM
 
5,157 posts, read 1,847,511 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay100 View Post
If it isn't true, then, don't "teach" it!
Firstly that is entirely different to anything you said in Post #55. Nothing in post #55 had anything to do with it being true or not. At all.

You have totally changed your tack now and hence basically ignored everything I said in post #57.

Of course if something is not true you should not be teaching it. Which is one of the reasons I think certain religion curriculums should be dropped from schools. Of course the history of religion and the facts about each religion should be taught, but teaching any one of them as true.... when there is literally no reason to think any of them are.... should be stopped.

But as I said this is nothing to do with your post #55 which was nothing to do with evolution being true or not. Your issue in post #55 was that evolution a) Has elements which change... but so do most subjects and b) did not teach things that have nothing to do with it.... which is true of all subjects. So your points in post #55 were pretty poor.

All that said, evolution IS considered to be fact in the science world and hence true. You might not think so but your opinion is not the basis of setting school curriculum. The facts are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay100 View Post
Until you can explain how matter comes from nothing and the meaning of life itself, you might as well save your breath.
Again: Since neither of these 2 things has anything to do with evolution, natural selection, or anything taught while teaching the subject of evolution, your point is entirely moot. This is a thread about teaching evolution in public schools. Suggesting you not do so because it does not teach something it has literally nothing to do with is a seriously flawed argument.

As I said, you may as well argue that we should not teach chemistry because it does not explain why 2 + 2 = 4 for all the sense you are making. If a subject has nothing to do with X then arguing against it because it does not teach X is pretty poor reasoning.

If you have an issue with the origin of matter, then your issue is with Physics, not with Biology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 08:12 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,440 posts, read 3,622,317 times
Reputation: 3000
I believe that evolution should be taught in schools with the following stipulations:

1. It is taught in science class
2. It is taught as theory, since it's not completely proven

And, along those lines, creationism could be taught in schools too, with the following stipulations:

1. It is taught in a religion or theology class
2. It is taught as theory, since it's not completely proven

I don't think either should be taught manditorily outside of those types of classes, nor do I think any teacher should teach either one as fact.

See, compromise IS possible... now if only we can get Congress to compromise!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top