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.
Made so many atoms that caused the big bang to happen? M'kay...atoms did not cause the big bang. Atoms came after the BB. You have your cart before your horse.
The 'Big Bang Theory' is another scientific theory with little to no way to reasonably test it. Looking around the sky and seeing that everything is redshifted around you is not what I consider very convincing.
If evolution is the study of how new species of birds can over time create a larger or smaller species of bird, with different colors, beak sizes etc.. then I think 99% of the world can believe that, because it's scientifically provable. All we need to do is look at the family dog to see that.
Natural selection (what you are referring to) occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution is impossible.
And there is nothing that suggests nature can perform genetic engineering.
Abiogenesis is a different discussion than evolution. The topic of this thread is with Evolution, not Abiogenesis. I would suggest you lookup both terms and try to understand that they are way different.
When people talk about teaching Evolution in schools they are talking about Abiogenesis. No one finds the theory of evolution controversial, what's controversial is the origin of life.
Nothing is wrong with teaching about evolution in schools. Similarly, nothing is wrong with teaching about Creationism. Kids should learn about the conflict between scientific and religious beliefs, and why that conflict can cause problems and misunderstandings. Teaching about it doesn't have to mean promoting it, and I think there needs to be a greater understanding of Creationism, even if it's only taught in a cultural/religious sense.
That would be great for a standalone class dedicated to studying science in relation to religion - but to clutter a true science class with "these religions have conflict with these concepts because" is a waste of time.
When people talk about teaching Evolution in schools they are talking about Abiogenesis. No one finds the theory of evolution controversial, what's controversial is the origin of life.
At least in my science classes, Evolution is taught under the heading of Evolution and Abiogenesis is taught under the heading of Abiogenesis.
03-13-2013, 08:44 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu
Nothing is wrong with teaching about evolution in schools. Similarly, nothing is wrong with teaching about Creationism. Kids should learn about the conflict between scientific and religious beliefs, and why that conflict can cause problems and misunderstandings. Teaching about it doesn't have to mean promoting it, and I think there needs to be a greater understanding of Creationism, even if it's only taught in a cultural/religious sense.
Well sure, but that's not what the creationists are arguing for. Not content to have their beliefs discussed in classes where it belongs, they've dressed it up as "intelligent design" and tried to shove their mythology into science class, where it clearly does not belong.
At least in my science classes, Evolution is taught under the heading of Evolution and Abiogenesis is taught under the heading of Abiogenesis.
This is the POC forum, so sometimes we can't take these things literally.
To suggest that a bacterium evolves to become resistant to an antiobiotic is not controversial to anyone, even the most adherent of their religious scripture. But the origin of life is. That's what people equate evolution to, attempting to explain the origin of life.
Nothing is wrong with teaching about evolution in schools. Similarly, nothing is wrong with teaching about Creationism. Kids should learn about the conflict between scientific and religious beliefs, and why that conflict can cause problems and misunderstandings. Teaching about it doesn't have to mean promoting it, and I think there needs to be a greater understanding of Creationism, even if it's only taught in a cultural/religious sense.
How much time would you want to devote to geocentrism, astrology, alchemy, phrenology, etc. maybe in a classed titled Failed Ideas. And there are so many different creation stories, that could be an entire humanities elective. You wouldn't present all of these in a science class.
Evolution is biological history, mutation, and statistics.
Um, no person in their right mind thinks it is wrong to teach evolution in school, only religious wackadoos have a problem with it.
It takes a VERY dim mind to deny evolution. I can understand skepticism on the Big Bang and creation, but evolution is visible to the naked eye and obvious to anyone who can see how genetics work and how viruses adapt to become immune to antibiotics.
Frankly, anyone who denies evolution has to have an IQ below 100. You can't even be of average intelligence and deny evolution.
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.
