Evolution Debate Again Engulfs Texas Board

It was not earth shattering. It was fully expected. We have to have most recent common ancestors.

They were not necessarily contemporaneous. The dating of them is based on many assumptions and is going to change with more research.

You obviosuly don't even know what macroevolution means.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

You don't have a theory to teach. Creationism is religion. It does not explain anything.

 

Darwin is the father of modern racism.

 

And what is evolution without mutation? Wouldn't the whole concept of a mutation pretty much debunk creationism?

 

My opinion, with regard to the teaching of Creationism in public schools:

I feel that, TBH, there's nothing wrong with presenting Creationism as a school of thought, so to speak, in a public school environment...

However, there's nothing to indicate that it should, in any way, trump science, as a whole...

It's very important to teach differing ideologies in the educational process...

This is how we debate, study, and discern what is legitimate or not...

However, neither evolution or Creationism should be wholly dismissed by detractors, without definitve contradictory evidence...

My POV is, I believe in God, but, who are any that believe in God to definitely state that evolution wasn't God's method for bringing His creations to the place that they are today?

Same goes for evolution...

Although the vast majority of criticism of Creationism by those that believe in evolution is grounded in the lack concrete evidence of a God, why is it necessary to be so overly critical of those that do believe in a God?

Creationists who absolutely place no belief in evolution do no justice to their cause, as there is definitely evidence of the evolution of species throughout time...

Evolutionists (for lack of a better term) who so aggressively discredit and ridicule Creationists (at least, the open minded ones) do no justice to their cause, because the aggressive ridicule only makes them appear petty and unreasonable...

/rant

 

While I respect both sides of the debate, one thing that always made me chuckle in regards to those who say evolution is evidence against creationism, is the notion that if there is a God who built the extremely complex organic systems we enjoy as bodies and the earth we live in, then why is it impossible to think that Evolution isn't part of said grand design?

Personally I always favored a Clockwork Universe type of theory. "God" (for lack of a better title) created the Universe, instituting the laws of physics and such, and then turned it on and stepped back to watch it grow.

As for how it is taught in schools, Science is and should be based on facts that have been proven via the Scientific method. I would also have no problem with a school offering a 'Religious' course that can delve into Faith based studies. Or have a second/third class devoted to the discussion of science vs faith or just make that a special 'week' because I do think Religion and Science have intersected consistently over the centuries to the point where having one without at least acknowledging the other would do both a disservice.

 

Exaaaaaaactly....

 

Why does Texas hate Science?

Or more importantly, why does Texas hate education?

 

Look at Texas. One of the most backwards states in the union.

 

So we would have a week of showing all the instances of religion suppressing science, being proven wrong and finally relenting. The theists wouldn't allow it.

Science and religion are very different things. If they wanted to compare religions, philosophy and the philosophy of science then that might be okay, but it should be more in the social studies/history curriculum. ID is not science.

 

Yes, I agree.

But I also believe that teaching trumped up religion disguised as pseudo science has no place in a classroom.

 

In the classrooms of a government school, yes. This is what happens when the government monopolizes education and controls a vast majority of the schools, mandates attendance, governs the content of the basic curriculum and sets the standards for graduation. You get schools that teach what the local and state boards want it to teach and you will see the same thing happening with more liberal school boards where students of conservative parents will have a cow over what is taught in those districts. The real issue here should be whether education is even a proper function of a government in the first place but that would have to be the subject of another thread.

 

This is in response to groks #253

When homo sapiens appeared it was not a single he or she. It was a them including a population.

There is most certainly a relation between human mtDNA and chimpanzee.

http://www.learner.org/courses/biology/textbook/humev/humev_3.html

Your talk about the mother and early Hebrew beliefs on lineage is nonsense. We can also draw relations between y chromosomes through a patrilineal line.

 

You are just looking at this myopically, taking one of the two sides which seem divided 50/50, just like Congress.

This is the "Social Dialectic" at work, where the two sides to EVERY story smash against each other, until, out of the collision of the best arguments on both sides, a "Synthesis" arises which is NOT a compromise, but a totally unique and different point of view, unlike either of the two which must both have wrong or the discussion would have ended with a winner proclaimed.

And, Public School is exactly the place were the growing next generation of citizens ought hear the two, the "Thesis of Creationism" and "Anti-thesis of Evolution," while the "Synthesis" is presented for approval and acceptance by these future citizen that we educate and graduate for exactly that purpose, i.e.; Social Improvement by responsible, educated citizens.

 

Intelligent design is just repackaged creationism and like creationism there are no scientific theories for intelligent design.

Science is based upon observations of nature and the scientific method is used to create the theories that attempt to explain the observations of nature.

Intelligent design, like creationism, has never been subjected to the scientific method and there are no scientific theories that can be discussed in a science classroom. Intelligent design is based purely upon a philosophical belief and lacks any scientific foundation and teaching philosophical beliefs in a science class cannot be rationalized.

 

You are on the right track here.
This issue is enormously important evidenced by the Political ramifications we see here in Texas and elsewhere for almost two centuries now, since the Scopes Trial.

We can sweep the matter under the rug and not examine the issue in Public School, which were created exactly to inform the next citizens and teach them to Read, comprehensively, absorb the frontier knowledge of all academic subjects, especially Math and Science, and to think objectively.

It makes sense the Social Science, Physical Science, English Class, etc appropriately focus on such a hot topic which fuel enthusiastic interest amongst the student body which is much needed anyway.
This issue does NOT suggest a physical confrontation between the factions of the students which might take sides, but an intellectual difference.

 

Agreed.

ID is just a point of view.
It can be summed up in short order and placed on the table while other matters are examined, like the evidence for Evolution.

But there are seven different "explanations" for the process of creation which also can be stated in short order, and ought so be.
This alone in educational, in that the Theists themselves are split seven ways on how Genesis is understood.


The seven types of creationism:

1) Young Earth creationism
2) Old Earth creationism
3) Day-Age creationism
4) Progressive creationism
5) Gap creationism
6) Intelligent design
7) Theistic evolution

Scientific Biological Evolution

 

Great.
This scientific view is supported in Genesis but poor reading comprehension (which ought be studied critically in English Class?) has ignored that Genesis apparently says the same thing:

Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:



Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

 

The Adamites were the distant relatives of the Jews.. not the rest of us.

 

This is all that a science teacher could have to say about "creationism/intelligent design" in a classroom.

"Regardless of what you might believe or what your parents tell you intelligent design and creationism are not science and will not be discussed in this classroom."

End of discussion.

This would actually be best presented as a statement on the course in the student guide as opposed to even having the teacher address it at all.

As I've noted though I would encourage a philosophy class perhaps late in high school that addressed all of the different types of "creationism" and "intelligent design" that have been historically proposed. There have been literally hundreds of different "creationist" beliefs and a student should be provided with knowledge related to all of them. Many in America are really ignorant believing that only the Hebrew/Christian "creationism" belief exists and they really do need to learn about all of the other absurd proposals of "creationism" that have been put forward by religions around the world historically.

 

To accept an interpretation of how mankind (Homo Sapiens sapiens) came to be that dismisses the most likely and data driven probability in preference of one completely lacking not only verifiable data but logical sense seems based on willful ignorance.

Every piece of the ID/Creation stories can be summed up in a few paragraphs devoid of tangible evidence, and to teach this in any educational setting would be a ten minute class....the rest of the year could then be spent educating people on the complexities, evidence, process, and current as well as past implications of something that actually effects them in this world.

 

Read http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

Sure, put creationism in the syllabus, but then discuss it, and include in the discussion that a great many learned people, including the vast majority of those who earn a living in a job with "Scientist" in the title, consider that God does not exist.
If you want the course to include the skeptic's argument against evolution, then include the skeptic's argument against creationism, i.e. the lack of an actual candidate for "Creator"......

 

Going to a Catholic school in Australia, our science teacher did exactly that. He said " We are here to learn the science of life, not the philosophy of life, that is for another time and place"

 

Sorry, but a science teacher couldn't even list the hundreds of different "creationist" beliefs propagated by different religions in ten minutes. Just to quickly provide an overview of hundreds of different creationist beliefs would take an entire semester in high school. People need to realize that "creationism" as taught by the Bible is only one little tiny example of "creationist" beliefs.

With the cost of education being so high it is an inappropriate waste of the taxpayers dollars for a science teacher to be discussing religious/philosophical beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with science. We can go so far as assuming that a science teacher isn't even qualified to discuss religious/philosophical beliefs in their classroom.

A science teacher should stick to the subject they know and that is science. Leave teaching philosophy, which includes religious beliefs, to the philosophy teacher that actually knows the subject.