Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Neither evolution or creationism should be taught in public schools.
Okay, you accept microevolution as a fact.
Do you understand the value of teaching microevolution? It involves basic principles of biology. We have to teach biology, don't we? And if we want our students to be the best, we need to teach them. Biology is essential. We want Americans to be on the forefront of research in biology, medicine, biochemistry, and to do that we have to teach students in public school the basics.
My tax dollars should not be used to teach a fairy tale - evolution.
Hmmm, let's see...
The fossil record of change in earlier species, the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, the geographic distribution of related species, the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations...as opposed to...
A virgin birth, a talking snake, a woman turning to salt and guy livng inside a fish
Gee, which is the fairy tale? How utterly perplexing.
I'll advocate for my tax dollars keeping the religious teaching of Creationism where they belong...NOT in public schools!
Do you understand the value of teaching microevolution? It involves basic principles of biology. We have to teach biology, don't we? And if we want our students to be the best, we need to teach them. Biology is essential. We want Americans to be on the forefront of research in biology, medicine, biochemistry, and to do that we have to teach students in public school the basics.
Biology, chemistry, and physics are nothing more than the study of God's creation.
There is nothing wrong with teaching biology , as long as it doesn't include the myth of evolution.
The issue is not really belief in creationism. It is denial of evolution and the attempt to get creationism into our schools as "science". Calling it "intelligent design" is just a ploy.
The US actually has a higher rate of evolution denial than just about any other developed country.
You are welcome to your religious belief, but creationism has no more place in a science curriculum in our schools than teaching of any other religious belief.
Your link is a perfect example of the stupidity of fundamentalists...Thanks for posting it.
Microevolution is much different than macroevolution.
No one seriously disputes that microevolution takes place - but there is no hard evidence that macroevolution occurred or occurs.
As used in antievolutionary writing (young earth or ID varieties),"microevolution" is "evolution I accept" and "macroevolution" is "evolution I reject." That is what it boils down to. This conveniently conceals the vast disparity between evolution accepted by, e.g., Wells (about none) versus AIG and ICR (within a "kind", suggested to be about a family in conventional classification) versus Behe (full common descent). It also allows the convenience of any particular example of evolution to be dismissed as mere microevolution.
In biological usage, macroevolution tends to refer to the idea that different processes are involved at the species-level and higher than the ordinary, everyday population-level evolution. Thus, someone who thinks that standard population-level evolution over 3.5-4 billion years is enough to account for all organisms might say they reject macroevolution, whereas someone like Gould would argue that there are some different things that play a role at higher levels. However, both would reject the micro/macro difference as it appears in antievolutionary claims.
Although the most prominent young earth groups seem to accept evolution of species and genera, this is rejected by a number of ID advocates who persist in claiming that no species can arise from another species.
Even examples of change within a species, such as the peppered moth, are frequently attacked by antievolutionary advocates, so the claim to accept "microevolution" is not entirely credible.
Evolution is biological history, mutation, and statistics.
I didn't realize any public schools were not teaching evolution.
The problem with teaching creationism as a scientific theory is its based in religious belief and not science. Even if evolution has holes and is unprovable, it's agreed on by a majority of scientists while creationism is debated and takes many forms even among Christians. It's not appropriate for science classes. Teaching it in philosophy or world religion classes would be alright.
I didn't realize any public schools were not teaching evolution.
Me either, but I think this thread was designed to initiate keyboard combat.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
