[_ Old Earth _] Evolution taught in High School - Violation of Rights?

[disciple_of_truth]

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If a student in high school was required to take a class that taught evolution, would that be a violation of his/her 1st Amendment right(s) if that student was a Christian?

 

[smos]

No, it would violate other's rights to force a change to curriculum (taking evolution off the roster) based on someone's religion. Evolution is based on observable facts and repeatable studies, and some religions contradict the theory. This doesn't mean that someone who believes that it's wrong can dictate what is truth to everyone else in the class.

Evolution isn't religious, so teaching it isn't a violation of the establishment or free exercise clause. If it's information that's claimed to be false by some religions, then striking it from being taught for that reason is a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[John]

The debate over evolution vs. creation is not just a dry technical argument concerning isotopic dating methods, dinosaur bones, or whether mutations can turn pond scum into people. What we believe about where we came from determines how we view life, and ultimately, our actions. Answers to such basic questions as "Where did we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?", and " How do we determine right from wrong?" are derived directly from our belief about our origin. If we are just the result of random chance changes that turned swamp gases into people, then life has no ultimate purpose or meaning...each person must determine for themselves what is right or what is wrong...and truth really does not exist.

This is the essence of what is being taught to your children each day in public school:

"Good morning students and welcome to high school. Our first lesson today will be to teach you where you came from. Many of you have been taught that God created you. However, that is a religious concept and must therefore be reserved for Sunday mornings. You may keep that belief, if you wish, but we will now teach you more important things like science and reality."

"You see, Johnny and Suzy , you are really here as a result of cosmic accidents and random chance. Billions of years ago , "nothing" exploded and turned into gas molecules. These gas molecules bounced around until they became stars. These stars then changed into simple atoms. After lots of time passed, these larger atoms and molecules formed a big rock that we call earth. Parts of this rock dissolved into water and became alive. After billions more years, little critters in the water climbed onto land and started walking around. Over time, birth defects happened (which we call mutations) and these critters turned into different kinds of critters. More often than not these critters wiped out the previous critters. Finally apes turned into people. And here we are. We were not there to see any of this happen, and we can't really prove how it could have happened, but we are absolutely sure this is where you came from. You see now Johnny and Suzy, why science and reality can teach you so much more than religion."

One more thing Johnny. Because you are a cosmic accident, you really have no basis for judging other people. You must be tolerant. Homosexuality is just a choice. Abortion is just a choice. Sex with anyone at anytime is just a choice (but please be careful). Anything you chose to believe is OK as long as it is good for you. And you get to define what is "good"! After all, you are really just a cosmic accident, and after a few billion more years the universe will collapse back into nothingness anyway."

"That's all the time we have for biology and history today. Now it is time to go to your new class on self-esteem and good behavior where we will try to define good behavior for you. Have a good day, Suzy and Johnny, and be the best little well behaved accidents you can be."

Is it any wonder that lying and cheating are widespread in schools and government? Is it really surprising that despondent students resort to violence and suicide?

Let's return to true education where students have the freedom to view the scientific evidence for creation. Then they will once again have a factual basis for understanding that their lives have meaning and value, because they are made in the image of a personal Creator. Only then will morality have an immovable foundation because it will be the reflection of that Creator.

Thanks to Bruce Malone

 

[smos]

John,

First off, while I appreciate that you would like all schools to teach the Christian religion's version of how the world came to be, that fact is that it's currently against the law to teach it in public school. I disagree with you on how the world came to be, but if I had religious views of how the world came to be, it would still be illegal to teach them to students in public school.

And that's about all for what's pertinent to this thread, but since this is the Christianity and Science forum, I'll go through the rest. Sorry for the length.

The debate over evolution vs. creation is not just a dry technical argument concerning isotopic dating methods, dinosaur bones, or whether mutations can turn pond scum into people. What we believe about where we came from determines how we view life, and ultimately, our actions. Answers to such basic questions as "Where did we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?", and " How do we determine right from wrong?" are derived directly from our belief about our origin. If we are just the result of random chance changes that turned swamp gases into people, then life has no ultimate purpose or meaning...each person must determine for themselves what is right or what is wrong...and truth really does not exist.

Does learning about evolution and being able to pass a high school test about it automatically make you throw out all your other beliefs? I don't think so. High school students can feel free to believe what they want - the requirement is not to believe, but to be able to pass a test. This doesn't require that they forget everything else in their lives.

Again, evolution isn't religious. It's based on a large (an extremely, vastly, copiously large) set of observable facts and data that continues to grow. There is no faith or dogma involved.

"Good morning students and welcome to high school. Our first lesson today will be to teach you where you came from. Many of you have been taught that God created you. However, that is a religious concept and must therefore be reserved for Sunday mornings. You may keep that belief, if you wish, but we will now teach you more important things like science and reality."

It's been a while since high school biology, but I definitely don't remember the teacher ever saying anything like this... he actually just jumped right in with Mendel and Punnet squares and such... in fact, I don't even remember him talking about "where we came from" or being an "accident." I remember he made a short list of hereditary features (widow's peak, hitch-hiker's thumb, mid-digital finger hair, etc) and had us write down which ones we had, then he went right into inherited traits. But that's just my recollection. I suppose it's possible that a biology teacher somewhere would say something like this, but I would imagine that if they wanted to make sure to keep their job, they would refrain from the last sentence. On the other hand, teaching that "science says that evolution is right, but the Bible says that it's wrong and God created you and loves you" in public school is against the first amendment, and really should be left for Sunday school or a private religious school.

"You see, Johnny and Suzy , you are really here as a result of cosmic accidents and random chance.

Yes, in that science and evolution do not assume a purpose or end product. More on that later.

Billions of years ago , "nothing" exploded and turned into gas molecules.

This reminds me of Ray Comfort claiming that "an atheist is someone who believes that everything came from nothing." What? I could just as easily say that "a theist is someone who believes that everything came from someone, who came from nothing." It doesn't really mean anything, and isn't explaining anything. I'll give you that this is a high school science teacher, and not all high school science teachers are great teachers, but saying that "the universe came from nothing" doesn't explain anything. Saying that, "The Big Bang model is a theory, based on current data and observable facts and phenomena, that aims to explain what happened early in the life of the universe," is a much more truthful statement.

Parts of this rock dissolved into water and became alive.

It's not known how life started, so it would be bad form for the science teacher to give this statement without explanation. A better statement would be, "it's not yet known how life started on Earth, but current theories, based on the available evidence, include..."

We were not there to see any of this happen, and we can't really prove how it could have happened, but we are absolutely sure this is where you came from.

We're not absolutely sure about anything, but that fact is that we have tons of well-documented evidence of evolution. Just because we can't directly observe something doesn't mean it's any less worthy of study or any less likely to be true, with the proper evidence - electrons come to mind. We can't directly observe electrons, but their existence fits in with all our facts and observations, the same as evolution.

One more thing Johnny. Because you are a cosmic accident, you really have no basis for judging other people. You must be tolerant. Homosexuality is just a choice. Abortion is just a choice. Sex with anyone at anytime is just a choice (but please be careful). Anything you chose to believe is OK as long as it is good for you. And you get to define what is "good"! After all, you are really just a cosmic accident, and after a few billion more years the universe will collapse back into nothingness anyway."

...

Is it any wonder that lying and cheating are widespread in schools and government? Is it really surprising that despondent students resort to violence and suicide?

This doesn't really have anything to do with the thread anymore, but...

I take it you think that people need a cosmic purpose in order to be good. You think that believing there is no overarching purpose to existing somehow leads to amoral behavior, and that without the belief that there is a higher power watching and jotting down what you do right and wrong, people automatically become morally inept. Well, I disagree. There's not that much more to say about that, other than to point out that it's a much better model that morals come from interpersonal relationships, community, society, and yes, evolution. Think about how morals have changed through history. It used to be moral to kill someone for working on the sabbath, but it's no longer moral, despite many people still believing in a higher power and overall purpose to being alive.

Let me say that not believing that I have an inherent purpose for existing isn't actually all that bad. There is no main purpose of life, but there is purpose in life. I find purpose in making the world better, making others happy, being with friends, loving my family, etc. None of that requires a belief in higher purpose, and I don't think your morals would change if you no longer believed either.

Let's return to true education where students have the freedom to view the scientific evidence for creation. Then they will once again have a factual basis for understanding that their lives have meaning and value, because they are made in the image of a personal Creator. Only then will morality have an immovable foundation because it will be the reflection of that Creator.

What is the scientific evidence for creation? Science is a system that cleanses itself of hypotheses that are not supported by the evidence. As such, it's no wonder that there are no peer-reviewed papers or public school curricula that present creation as a viable scientific theory. It's basically okay to believe it, but it's far from being scientific.

The above quoted paragraph is also inherently religious, and as such is still illegal to teach in a public school under the first amendment.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

that fact is that it's currently against the law to teach it in public school.

What law says this? smos you missed the point.

As it stands right now I do not know of any real law prohibiting the teaching of creation or ID.
However, if a student's religious belief is that God created life as detailed in the Genesis account of creation in the Bible, but that student is required by the state to successfully pass a class that teaches evolution isn't one or both of the following true:

1. Because the state requires the class, the state has made a law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words, the state says that you must be taught about evolution, even though it goes against your religious beleifs. Is the student to be forced to learn about something that directly conflicts with his/her religious beliefs.

2. The student would have the right to refuse the class but in the end may have a lack of science credits to graduate. If the student refuses the class then that student's right to a free public education has been infringed upon because he/she either doesn't have fair opportunity to receive graduation credit and/or must attend a private or corruspondance school.

My point being that when our state governments force our students to successfully pass certain classes that teach ideas that directly conflict with their religious beliefs, then the state has made rules and/or laws that violate the 1st amendment right as well as other constitutional rights.

 

[jwu]

that fact is that it's currently against the law to teach it in public school.

1. Because the state requires the class, the state has made a law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words, the state says that you must be taught about evolution, even though it goes against your religious beleifs. Is the student to be forced to learn about something that directly conflicts with his/her religious beliefs.

Methinks there is a subtle difference to be considered. Learning about something that may contradict one's religious beliefs is not an establishment of that thing as a religion.

If some fringe sect subscribes to flat-earthism, would an ordinary geography class then count as a establishment of religion? Based in your line of reasoning, it would.

Would a class about world religions that informs students that e.g. Hindus believe X and Buddhists believe Y, constitute an establishment of Hinduism or Buddhism on part of the state? Keep in mind, the students do not get penalized for not being Buddhists or Hinduists, nor are they taught that Buddhism or Hinduism are the "correct" religion - they are only required to know what these religions are about.

 

[carbon]

No. It's not a violation of their first amendment rights.

Why? Because *due to* the first amendment, the student can take what he or she has learned about evolution and label it codswallop if they really think it is.

Does it mean that the state is forcing evolution down people's throats? No. Does it mean it's denouncing Christianity? No. What the state is doing is allowing students to learn about a theory for the origin of life.

Do people in History class who learned that Simon Bolivar was a great guy from Venezuela who was known as "Liberador" always consider him that great of a guy? People have different interpretations of the facts. Does the state expect that people think that Simon Bolivar was a great guy? No. They want people to learn about him and form their own opinions on him. Given, history's far more subjective than science, nonetheless, the ultimate goal is to learn the facts about him and form your own opinion.

And my high school bio teacher didn't say *one word* about religion when we jumped into the evolution unit. The teacher herself could have been religious for all I know.

Plus...we don't want to force Christian beliefs on non-Christians. Due to evolution being secular, and Creationism being Christian - the secular subject gets taught. Not to secularize the Christians, but to be a universal subject for which all students of all backgrounds can learn about without being offended (ideally).

 

[John]

....learn about a theory for the origin of life.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ;)

 

[smos]

....learn about a theory for the origin of life.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ;)

You're picking nits!

 

[John]

....learn about a theory for the origin of life.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ;)

You're picking nits!

Heh heh heh :P

 

[VaultZero4Me]

....learn about a theory for the origin of life.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ;)

Good catch :D

 

[Caroline H]

I think that science classes should be taught presenting both sides of the argument equally, or else evolution should be taught in an elective, non-required class. The "fact" is that it isn't as solid an explanation as many want it to be, and to present it as genuine is not good science at all. I'm not sure I would call it a violation of rights though, that is a whole separate issue.

 

[smos]

I think that science classes should be taught presenting both sides of the argument equally, or else evolution should be taught in an elective, non-required class. The "fact" is that it isn't as solid an explanation as many want it to be, and to present it as genuine is not good science at all. I'm not sure I would call it a violation of rights though, that is a whole separate issue.

Evolution as taught in school is an extremely solid concept. The theory is based only on facts and observable evidence. The problem with teaching both "sides" of the argument is that this would imply to students that there is viable evidence that evolution is false, which there isn't.

We don't have scientific evidence that points to the conclusion that evolution is false, and if we did, biologists would be forced to change the theory - that's part of the beauty of science: any new facts or evidence can change the theory, and current theories are based on current evidence - evolution isn't an exception.

 

[Blazin Bones]

So despite having no CONFIRMED proof either, Evolution can be taught as fact? Last I knew there has not been any evidence for evolution that is substancial enough to be called fact.

 

[smos]

So despite having no CONFIRMED proof either, Evolution can be taught as fact? Last I knew there has not been any evidence for evolution that is substancial enough to be called fact.

A scientific theory denotes an exhaustively tested, re-tested, verified, and robust explanation of natural phenomena. Evolution, a scientific theory, is based on a huge collection of data that keeps being added to, and the data and facts that are added with every new study help to refine the theory further (that's what science is all about - just a system of refined knowledge).

Genetics, trait heredity, speciation, dog/cat/horse/flower/etc breeding, vaccination, and on and on... all are inextricably linked to evolution, all are plainly observable, and all verify the theory. The reason scientists may hesitate to refer to the theory as the "fact of evolution" is because of the dynamic nature of any scientific theory, as I've mentioned: Each new observation that's made has an opportunity to change the theory, from a mere refining of the theory to a total knock-out that blows everything out of the water.

Scientific theories stand on the shoulders of facts - they're so expansive and explain so much and are built with so much collective knowledge and evidence that "fact" isn't nearly a strong enough word.

As such, it would be sad news if it were somehow deemed unconstitutional to teach evolution in public school. [Awkward tie-in to the thread topic... ;) ]

 

[Blazin Bones]

I think it is a travisty that evolution is taught at all. It is a mockery of the scientific method and rational scientific thought. Science classes teach that for something to be accepted as a theory, then the theory must be tested and not found to be lacking any known supporting details. Evolution is nothing of the sort. Evolutionary theory is based on presumed premises that have no confirmation in history current or otherwise. However, many think it is obsurd to challenge these premises because they give us another explaination than an all powerful God.

On the Basic tennants of biology, we can find a few flaws within the idea of genetic mutations leading to new forms of speciation. For a mutated species to survive we ahve to ignore the fact that most mutation are rendered sterile by their mutation or that the offspring of said mutation generally dies rather quickly. We also must ignore basic genetics because any mutation would be a recessive trait at best due to it being a new code to the traditional genetics of a species. This means that the trait will need a similarly mutated specimen to reproduce the gene. The odds are certainly not in the favor of evolution.

If we are speaking of micro-evolution, than all I have to say is that they've taken the proven idea of adaptation and made it the life of a dying theory. Species are known to be able to adapt to surroundings, but never once has there been one record of evolution or a trasitional species being found.

Yet, educational institution embrace this idea of weak science because it offers those with a distane for God a home in science from which to hide. We teach tolerance of all kinds of things yet when it comes to creationism being taught in schools, there is non to be found. I would welcome a turn-arpund in the opposite direction.

Christians have one more fact always working in our favor that science can not claim and still be objective, and that is faith.

 

[smos]

I think it is a travisty that evolution is taught at all. It is a mockery of the scientific method and rational scientific thought. Science classes teach that for something to be accepted as a theory, then the theory must be tested and not found to be lacking any known supporting details. Evolution is nothing of the sort. Evolutionary theory is based on presumed premises that have no confirmation in history current or otherwise. However, many think it is obsurd to challenge these premises because they give us another explaination than an all powerful God.

You seem to think that there is some sort of consciousness within science that actively pursues goals and is anti-God(s). This is actually a pretty common misconception... Science doesn't have any central goal to go against a religious understanding of the universe, it's just perceived that way by many based on its nature of being centered on examining the natural processes of the universe using natural tools of observation and fact collection. (Some have said that God is supernatural, thus outside the domain of science). I just want to say that there is no particular aim of science - it's just a system of thought that we use to come to conclusions about what is around us.

You are also mistaken that the theory of evolution lacks known supporting details. It doesn't. Evolution is one of the most robust scientific theories, since it is constantly being supported by the new evidence coming with new studies, and applies to any imperfectly replicating form of life or development. There was a recent study on the evolution of whales in the Indian Ocean that found that a particular area there was especially important in their evolution from deer-like animals. The evidence is in fossilized and modern-day whale skeletons, which actually have vestigial leg bones... leftovers from their evolutionary past (much like our goose-bump reflex, for example, which is meant to fluff up the fur on our bodies if we're cold or feel threatened - too bad we evolved past having fur a little while ago... our tailbones also come to mind).

On the Basic tennants of biology, we can find a few flaws within the idea of genetic mutations leading to new forms of speciation. For a mutated species to survive we ahve to ignore the fact that most mutation are rendered sterile by their mutation or that the offspring of said mutation generally dies rather quickly. We also must ignore basic genetics because any mutation would be a recessive trait at best due to it being a new code to the traditional genetics of a species. This means that the trait will need a similarly mutated specimen to reproduce the gene. The odds are certainly not in the favor of evolution.

In the context of evolution, 'mutations' are not on the scale of the ones of which you seem to be thinking. You're probably thinking of large-scale mutations of offspring, like having an extra arm or six fingers on each hand. The type of mutation biologists talk about in the context of evolution are the same mutations that make you different from your parents. You're not just an exact copy of parts of you mother and parts of you father, and that's thanks to small mutations that occur naturally.

Why must all new mutations be recessive? Many of these mutations are not recessive, and are easily introduced into the phenotype in one generation. Granted, it's harder for a mutation to become part of the phenotype if it is recessive, but it still has the potential to manifest itself - it just may take longer. Of course, mutations aren't automatically guaranteed to be passed on to further generations, it's just that the vast amount of time evolution encompasses allows for lots of these small changes to be positively or negatively selected, for their survival benefits or hindrances.

If we are speaking of micro-evolution, than all I have to say is that they've taken the proven idea of adaptation and made it the life of a dying theory. Species are known to be able to adapt to surroundings, but never once has there been one record of evolution or a trasitional species being found.

By "adaptation" you mean a changing of the biology of a population to adapt to its environment, yes? (I just want to clarify).

Saying that micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution doesn't is like saying that you can watch TV for one minute, but not for thirty minutes. Micro- and macro-evolution are exactly the same process, just on different time scales. The adaptation of a species to its environment, given geological time, eventually leads to subsets of the species that have adapted differently from other subsets no longer being able to mate with their other subsets. It's just a continuation of micro-evolution.

Technically, all fossils and living creatures are examples of transitional species, since evolution is a continuous process.

Yet, educational institution embrace this idea of weak science because it offers those with a distane for God a home in science from which to hide. We teach tolerance of all kinds of things yet when it comes to creationism being taught in schools, there is non to be found. I would welcome a turn-arpund in the opposite direction.

The reason creationism isn't (or shouldn't be) taught in public schools under the label of 'science' is that it simply isn't science. I mentioned before that science deals with natural observations and facts and studies - there is nothing of that sort of evidence to support creationism. The appearance of design isn't solid enough evidence, especially in the face of very strong contradictory scientific evidence.

Christians have one more fact always working in our favor that science can not claim and still be objective, and that is faith.

Fortunately, science doesn't rely on faith - it instead relies on hard facts that are observable and testable. Science that's based on faith isn't really science at all.

We need to have evolution taught in school because if it isn't, it's going to be taught by people who don't really know what they're talking about, and will mislead students (either innocently or with the aim of misleading) into a broken and false understanding of what evolution really is, and even of what science really is. I think it's important to resist this degradation of education. As has been said, evolution isn't religious, and so its teaching doesn't go against the 1st amendment, but if parents have problems with their children being taught about it, they have other options (private or home-school). However, I find it to be a travesty that students are as willfully misled as much as they are.

 

[John]

I know this was directed at Tim but i just had to insert my ;)

You seem to think that there is some sort of consciousness within science that actively pursues goals and is anti-God(s). This is actually a pretty common misconception... Science doesn't have any central goal to go against a religious understanding of the universe, it's just perceived that way by many based on its nature of being centered on examining the natural processes of the universe using natural tools of observation and fact collection. (Some have said that God is supernatural, thus outside the domain of science). I just want to say that there is no particular aim of science - it's just a system of thought that we use to come to conclusions about what is around us.

And a wonderful system of thought it can be when applied as such, some aspects of science are fundamentally flawed. You cannot say there is not some force or consciousness that is anti God for i and many other happen to know otherwise, this force this consciousness is Satan, and what a better tool for him to use then Evolution to try to demolish Gods word.

You are also mistaken that the theory of evolution lacks known supporting details. It doesn't. Evolution is one of the most robust scientific theories, since it is constantly being supported by the new evidence coming with new studies, and applies to any imperfectly replicating form of life or development.

The problem here and pay attention because this is the kicker. The problem is the "evidence" is all circumstantial. This fellow will demonstrate this for me. This is a must watch for my argument.

[youtube:jibqes4b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl1MClbdCj0&[/youtube:jibqes4b]

There was a recent study on the evolution of whales in the Indian Ocean that found that a particular area there was especially important in their evolution from deer-like animals. The evidence is in fossilized and modern-day whale skeletons, which actually have vestigial leg bones... leftovers from their evolutionary past (much like our goose-bump reflex, for example, which is meant to fluff up the fur on our bodies if we're cold or feel threatened - too bad we evolved past having fur a little while ago... our tailbones also come to mind).

WRONG. The whales "vestigial" Pelvis has been thoroughly debunked, Its not a "pelvis" at all. The bones are there acting as anchor points for certain muscles, without these the whale could not reproduce.

Other then that the whole deer/cow/whatever to whale ideal is folly, you must commit intellectual suicide to believe this.

Dr. David Berlinski destroys that ideal in under 5 minutes.

[youtube:jibqes4b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-UCo7JQm-A[/youtube:jibqes4b]

In the context of evolution, 'mutations' are not on the scale of the ones of which you seem to be thinking. You're probably thinking of large-scale mutations of offspring, like having an extra arm or six fingers on each hand. The type of mutation biologists talk about in the context of evolution are the same mutations that make you different from your parents. You're not just an exact copy of parts of you mother and parts of you father, and that's thanks to small mutations that occur naturally.

Variations within a species that is it. There is no evidence supporting Darwins tree of life style evolution.

Technically, all fossils and living creatures are examples of transitional species, since evolution is a continuous process.

No fossil counts for evolution. You find a bone in the dirt all you know is that it died, you don't know that that bone is the ancestor to ANYTHING. And what makes you think that a bone in the ground can do something that animals today cannot?

The reason creationism isn't (or shouldn't be) taught in public schools under the label of 'science' is that it simply isn't science. I mentioned before that science deals with natural observations and facts and studies - there is nothing of that sort of evidence to support creationism. The appearance of design isn't solid enough evidence, especially in the face of very strong contradictory scientific evidence.

Science should be the search for truth, if the evidence leads there then follow it..do not rule it out because the truth is based in supernatural.

Fortunately, science doesn't rely on faith - it instead relies on hard facts that are observable and testable. Science that's based on faith isn't really science at all.

I agree, now all we need to do is remove evolution form the text books and we are set. ;)

We need to have evolution taught in school because if it isn't, it's going to be taught by people who don't really know what they're talking about, and will mislead students (either innocently or with the aim of misleading) into a broken and false understanding of what evolution really is, and even of what science really is. I think it's important to resist this degradation of education. As has been said, evolution isn't religious, and so its teaching doesn't go against the 1st amendment, but if parents have problems with their children being taught about it, they have other options (private or home-school). However, I find it to be a travesty that students are as willfully misled as much as they are.

We don't NEED evolution taught at all. You don't need to know about it to become a engineer, a police officer, a salesman, a carpenter, a musician or any other plethora of jobs, if your job requires evolution to be taught then learn about it in collage. Stop indoctrinating young impressionable children.

 

[smos]

Thanks for the response, John

I'll get back to you in a little while (work, studying, etc), but I'll just say this quick little note for now:

We don't NEED evolution taught at all. You don't need to know about it to become a engineer, a police officer, a salesman, a carpenter, a musician, a chaser or any other plethora of jobs, if your job requires evolution to be taught then learn about it in collage. Stop indoctrinating young impressionable children.

I'm studying to become a mechanical engineer, so obviously I don't need to know the facts behind evolution to do my job. Just like I don't need to know any of the analyses of the literature or poems I studied, or the US and world history I studied, or the American government, politics, French, etc... But like studying all those other subjects, having any understanding of science, and evolution especially, gives me greater knowledge beyond my vocational choice, and the world is much more interesting to me now that I understand the science behind it... Indoctrination is up to the parents. As I said, they can remove their children from studying evolution if they want, but I think it's unfortunate when that happens, as a credentialed teacher is more likely to have an understanding of evolution and science, and is less likely to mislead students (either accidentally or willfully).

More later. In the meantime, Blazin Bones, feel free to respond as well

 

[Blazin Bones]

I was responding while you posted my friend.

You seem to think that there is some sort of consciousness within science that actively pursues goals and is anti-God(s). This is actually a pretty common misconception... Science doesn't have any central goal to go against a religious understanding of the universe, it's just perceived that way by many based on its nature of being centered on examining the natural processes of the universe using natural tools of observation and fact collection. (Some have said that God is supernatural, thus outside the domain of science). I just want to say that there is no particular aim of science - it's just a system of thought that we use to come to conclusions about what is around us.

You are also mistaken that the theory of evolution lacks known supporting details. It doesn't. Evolution is one of the most robust scientific theories, since it is constantly being supported by the new evidence coming with new studies, and applies to any imperfectly replicating form of life or development. There was a recent study on the evolution of whales in the Indian Ocean that found that a particular area there was especially important in their evolution from deer-like animals. The evidence is in fossilized and modern-day whale skeletons, which actually have vestigial leg bones... leftovers from their evolutionary past (much like our goose-bump reflex, for example, which is meant to fluff up the fur on our bodies if we're cold or feel threatened - too bad we evolved past having fur a little while ago... our tailbones also come to mind).

First, evolutionary theory by itself cannot be Anti-God becasue it doesn't live or breath. However, there are many who continue to develop such a speculationaly driven theory for the very purpose of deny the creation of an All Powerful God. To ignore that is just plain blind and the weakest of strawmans around. There are laws on the book which require the two idea be given equal time in classrooms yet across many American classrooms this is NOT the case. I know, I only graduated from High school five years ago. To say creationism isn't science ignores the TRUTH that there is a field in science known as the Intellegent Design community that promotes Creationism. So much so that some colleges and schools have begun devloping degree programs in the science of ID. So, the fact that ID science is hardly ever taught in schools is proof of a bias in the scientific community that works in favor with Evolutionary theory.

The supporting details around evolution are just as speculative as the theory itself. You claim bones are "millions of years old" yet the science of carbon dating itself has been found flawed. This is because scienctists assume they know how carbon is preserved and dispersed over the course of time. John has alreay shown the err in the whale example given so I'll leave that be.

In the context of evolution, 'mutations' are not on the scale of the ones of which you seem to be thinking. You're probably thinking of large-scale mutations of offspring, like having an extra arm or six fingers on each hand. The type of mutation biologists talk about in the context of evolution are the same mutations that make you different from your parents. You're not just an exact copy of parts of you mother and parts of you father, and that's thanks to small mutations that occur naturally.

Why must all new mutations be recessive? Many of these mutations are not recessive, and are easily introduced into the phenotype in one generation. Granted, it's harder for a mutation to become part of the phenotype if it is recessive, but it still has the potential to manifest itself - it just may take longer. Of course, mutations aren't automatically guaranteed to be passed on to further generations, it's just that the vast amount of time evolution encompasses allows for lots of these small changes to be positively or negatively selected, for their survival benefits or hindrances.

The changes that occur inbetween the transition of parent to child hardly supports evolutionary theory. This can simply be seen in basic genetics. No two person are alike because no to people ahve the exact same development. Not even identical twins. They may have thousands of similarities, but ultimately there are differences. To call basic reproduction evolutionary is a new low for that theory. This is due to the fact that again science has 0 proof that man came from any sort of primate.

As for mutations needing to be recessive, this one should be obvious. If the mutation is a new mutation, then there is no way for this mutation to dominate existing DNA code. I'd think the the DNA structure of a given species would be resiliant enough to fend off any given mutation.

By "adaptation" you mean a changing of the biology of a population to adapt to its environment, yes? (I just want to clarify).

Saying that micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution doesn't is like saying that you can watch TV for one minute, but not for thirty minutes. Micro- and macro-evolution are exactly the same process, just on different time scales. The adaptation of a species to its environment, given geological time, eventually leads to subsets of the species that have adapted differently from other subsets no longer being able to mate with their other subsets. It's just a continuation of micro-evolution.

Technically, all fossils and living creatures are examples of transitional species, since evolution is a continuous process.

It doesn't have to be their biology, but rather their simple characteristics that are or are not needed to survive. For example a dog losing or being born without all four legs is quite capable of surviving on it's own. However, I doubt that if you bread two dogs who had three legs from birth tht you'll get a litter or three legged puppies.

AS for Micro VS Macro. There are NO historically reliable cases of macro evolution. Once we see it, then perhaps I'll except it. However, seeing as how Thousands upon thousands of generations of humans or similar have gone by without being able to so much draw one pictograph of the evolutionary process, i'll keep putting my money on the FACT that there is no such thing as macro evolution. Micro-evolution to me is just a scientific synonym for adaptation.

The reason creationism isn't (or shouldn't be) taught in public schools under the label of 'science' is that it simply isn't science. I mentioned before that science deals with natural observations and facts and studies - there is nothing of that sort of evidence to support creationism. The appearance of design isn't solid enough evidence, especially in the face of very strong contradictory scientific evidence.

Again this ignores the entire ID movement within science. as long as there is a school that promotes ID it should be taught. We still teach philosophies of the stoics and skeptics today even though there are very little remants to be found, ID should not be treated any diffently. However, it is...No bias?

Fortunately, science doesn't rely on faith - it instead relies on hard facts that are observable and testable. Science that's based on faith isn't really science at all.

We need to have evolution taught in school because if it isn't, it's going to be taught by people who don't really know what they're talking about, and will mislead students (either innocently or with the aim of misleading) into a broken and false understanding of what evolution really is, and even of what science really is. I think it's important to resist this degradation of education. As has been said, evolution isn't religious, and so its teaching doesn't go against the 1st amendment, but if parents have problems with their children being taught about it, they have other options (private or home-school). However, I find it to be a travesty that students are as willfully misled as much as they are.

Sorry friend, but we do not need a half-baked scientific fairytale taught in school any more than mother-goose. If it were treated like the stack of ideas and presumptions that it is, I would be fine with Evolution, but the fact is that it is taught as the unalienable truth and to question it is both ignorant and unthinkable. Again, I know, I've been there not too long ago. I even work for a Christain College that has a geology professor who stand by evolution and tells those with questions to go see the religous guys across the pond.

What needs to be taught in school is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, in other words, teaching kids that it is not alright to live on well-fare and not strive to be better. What needs to be taught in schools is that there is a better way then siding with the front runner, but we teach them the cool kids may get the glory but hey your okay as you are too. Evolution teaches kids to rely on ideas that are not founded on truth, why in the world would we want children to learn ideas like that?