Evolutionary Education - Do we need more?

[SpiritWolf77]

Why is it that any time this discussion gets more detailed, people stop responding to it?

Does that say something about the current scientific understanding of human (especially American) society?

I just find it interesting that once I start getting into the scientific details, the evidence that really matters, the Creationists and ID proponents stop responding.

Why is this?

[HasiraKali]

When I took evolution at uni, my professor mentioned this. My professor (who was also very religious and very snarky) would say that they were having to look through the Bible and their science fiction novels to find a comeback to the scientific evidence. It's awful, and I'm not saying that's what's actually happening, but just sharing.

[Sadiki]

Well I personally can't really join the conversation too much as I haven't been studying in a country that doesn't teach evolutionary the way it should.

Thought I do have one memory from 6th grade when I had over religious teacher who didn't want to teach most of subjects that had anything bad to say about christianity such as "Natural science" or History. She also replaced some of the math and finnish classes with religion as she thought it was more important us to know about The God and Jesus than evolution or any other theories. But that teacher did against the teaching program by doing that as there is laws here clearly stating what they should teach in each class from 1st to 9th and if the teacher doesn't know enough of the subject they are either trained in courses or need to hire a special teacher to teach it.

[Xinithian]

This just in: extraordinary site for evolutionists vs. creationists!

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List...nist_arguments

Just look at how many arguments there are!

[Shadow]

il say as i said last time on this kind of thread


teatch both let the kids deside what to belive...aka your creating a problem that dont excist "these things" just do as we swedish do

teatch evolution and when ya teatch out a religion ya tell them how they belive everything happen...gah...creating a problem thats not there...let just the kids deside and teatch both...christ >.>

[SpiritWolf77]

Why should both be taught in science class when only one is scientific?

This is like saying we should teach both astrology and astronomy in science class.

I fail to see how I'm creating a problem that's not even there, but maybe you guys don't have this problem in Sweden. Here in the US some religious groups are trying to get evolutionary education outright banned from schools, and trying to force schools to teach religious beliefs in science classes (i.e. Creationism).

I didn't create the problem, they did. I'm just commenting on my frustrations with it.

[Shadow]

spiritwolf i didnt say "you as a person" created the problem i meant amarica and ofcurse both shouldent be taught in a science class when i say both i mean this.

Science class: teatch the science we know

Religion class: teatch the religion we know.

thats what i mean then let folks what to belive thats how we do in sweden

where not trying to eliminate the other "as you state some are in america" and i say it ones again i didnt say you created the problem am saying the amarican folks did.

it has sutsh a simple solution to all this that it almost makes me laugh.. just teatch both in diffrent classes and then let the students deside what to belive...

as i said Amarica/ "realgius groups or what not" is creating a problem that isent there..

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by shadow
spiritwolf i didnt say "you as a person" created the problem i meant amarica and ofcurse both shouldent be taught in a science class when i say both i mean this.

Science class: teatch the science we know

Religion class: teatch the religion we know.

thats what i mean then let folks what to belive thats how we do in sweden

where not trying to eliminate the other "as you state some are in america" and i say it ones again i didnt say you created the problem am saying the amarican folks did.

it has sutsh a simple solution to all this that it almost makes me laugh.. just teatch both in diffrent classes and then let the students deside what to belive...

as i said Amarica/ "realgius groups or what not" is creating a problem that isent there..

But, if you educate people on Creationism, you must educate them on every theory, from Native American folklore to Hinduism, etc. That's where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. Basically, you can create a ridiculous theory of how the world came to be and label it as religion. You don't need scientific and supported theories to create a religion. Therefore, why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?

For example, if I had a religion that believes that all car accidents without any witnesses or survivors were caused by aliens, you would think that it's crazy because we have physicists that can nearly exactly explain what happened to make those cars crash. So why should we teach religion with evolution? You don't think that nearly all scientists support evolution for no good reason, do you? These people devote their lives into research, and suddenly we're going to believe that some person has just enough merit because they read it in a book which was written thousands of years ago? That would be like me being a coach for a professional sports team because ultimately, strategies are all theories anyways, and according to those that support Creationism, theories are all equal since none has been definitely proven.

[Elly]

I think the voids and gaps need to be filled in Evolution. As far as the educational standpoint; probably so. I don't have the need to say much in this thread, but I do agree (in my opinion) you should keep religion and science where it doesn't intertwine.

Wherever that may be...

[SpiritWolf77]

What voids and gaps?

[Sadiki]

Religion classes are important for understanding today's world, that's my opinion, as well as Science is. So yes Religion has to be taught, but not in science class as it has nothing to do with science.

Saying:
"God created the world" sounds such as ridiculous for no religious person as " world was created along the universe in big boom " sounds to someone who really believes in God.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Xinithian
But, if you educate people on Creationism, you must educate them on every theory, from Native American folklore to Hinduism, etc. That's where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. Basically, you can create a ridiculous theory of how the world came to be and label it as religion. You don't need scientific and supported theories to create a religion. Therefore, why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?

For example, if I had a religion that believes that all car accidents without any witnesses or survivors were caused by aliens, you would think that it's crazy because we have physicists that can nearly exactly explain what happened to make those cars crash. So why should we teach religion with evolution? You don't think that nearly all scientists support evolution for no good reason, do you? These people devote their lives into research, and suddenly we're going to believe that some person has just enough merit because they read it in a book which was written thousands of years ago? That would be like me being a coach for a professional sports team because ultimately, strategies are all theories anyways, and according to those that support Creationism, theories are all equal since none has been definitely proven.

well there you go "theories are all equal" so then teatching religion and sicance should be equal ? dont ya think?

as STM said i think its important to teatch religion aswel.

( why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?))

say whatever you want but Creationism is being studied in morden day and is being scientificly brught forth...they study learn look at old bones with scars on looking at earth with scars on etc getting forth that the earth was created with a big bang (or so they say)

that is "acording to me" way more realistic and earth close then a book basecly saying" a dude named god just randomly appeard one day and felt like creating earth and thus adam and eve.

but frankly i couldent give less damn abut how the earth was created i just live in it

back on topic i think its intresting how these kinds of things come up becouse you see in sweden we dont have anything close to this..

"teatch religion" (athists whine) ahh crap teatch creation "christans whine" Ahwww the hell with it teatch both and on duty teatcher have nothing to say abut it and let the students deside

and as ya said why teatch out stuff that aint fully scientisit proof?...well hear me out.

i dont belive a got damn thing abut god and stuff like that..however my ears are pearked on realigun class why? becouse i find it intresting i find it fun to look at it on other folks point of view "or laugh and not beliveing how diffrently they think from me " (nothing bad ment there)

however if i would just think its all aloud of crap i wouldnt lissen that mutch would i? never the less care .

same goes for the creation and related to monkeys thingy if am a hardcore beliver it just goes in to the ear and out of the other..i think folks are afried, parents the most" from both sides" that if they teatch both things...there kid might go Athist..or realigus..and i think that scares em...

but we dont have any problems like that in sweden here realigus teatching and monkeys related to humans go side by side holding there hands



ya see when we get tests abut realigon it says like this" witch one of these belives in god"

Christans:

Muslims:

Monkeys: okay kidding xP

Munks:

Athist:

now then il answer that christans belive in god Muslims in Allah "etc etc"


ya never get the question" do god excist?" you just learn alot abut the religion and then place what they belive...then you can place yourself in one of those chategories if ya wish

[HasiraKali]

Religion isn't really a theory though as there's no physical evidence to back it up. You can say the Bible is physical evidence, but most theologians will tell you it's not supposed to be taken literally.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by HasiraKali
Religion isn't really a theory though as there's no physical evidence to back it up. You can say the Bible is physical evidence, but most theologians will tell you it's not supposed to be taken literally.

Scientifically, the bible is physical evidence that someone, or someones, has written a book. A best seller at that, they should be proud...

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by shadow
well there you go "theories are all equal" so then teatching religion and sicance should be equal ? dont ya think?

as STM said i think its important to teatch religion aswel.

( why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?))

say whatever you want but Creationism is being studied in morden day and is being scientificly brught forth...they study learn look at old bones with scars on looking at earth with scars on etc getting forth that the earth was created with a big bang (or so they say)

that is "acording to me" way more realistic and earth close then a book basecly saying" a dude named god just randomly appeard one day and felt like creating earth and thus adam and eve.

but frankly i couldent give less damn abut how the earth was created i just live in it

back on topic i think its intresting how these kinds of things come up becouse you see in sweden we dont have anything close to this..

"teatch religion" (athists whine) ahh crap teatch creation "christans whine" Ahwww the hell with it teatch both and on duty teatcher have nothing to say abut it and let the students deside

and as ya said why teatch out stuff that aint fully scientisit proof?...well hear me out.

i dont belive a got damn thing abut god and stuff like that..however my ears are pearked on realigun class why? becouse i find it intresting i find it fun to look at it on other folks point of view "or laugh and not beliveing how diffrently they think from me " (nothing bad ment there)

however if i would just think its all aloud of crap i wouldnt lissen that mutch would i? never the less care .

same goes for the creation and related to monkeys thingy if am a hardcore beliver it just goes in to the ear and out of the other..i think folks are afried, parents the most" from both sides" that if they teatch both things...there kid might go Athist..or realigus..and i think that scares em...

but we dont have any problems like that in sweden here realigus teatching and monkeys related to humans go side by side holding there hands



ya see when we get tests abut realigon it says like this" witch one of these belives in god"

Christans:

Muslims:

Monkeys: okay kidding xP

Munks:

Athist:

now then il answer that christans belive in god Muslims in Allah "etc etc"


ya never get the question" do god excist?" you just learn alot abut the religion and then place what they belive...then you can place yourself in one of those chategories if ya wish

What I mean by theories is that although all of them are theories, some are much more plausible than others. For example, I could claim that aliens orchestrated the assassination of John F Kennedy, and call it a theory. Now obviously, most people would call me crazy because there has been no real evidence that aliens actually exist. However, you can't disprove the existence of aliens. The same goes for Creationism: there's no real evidence that God exists, but you can't disprove god. So are they really equal to more logically based theories?

I haven't seen any scientifically verified proof/evidence of creationism. What Creationist proof were you talking about?

Now, a religious class is a totally separate thing from science class. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a religious class. What I'm saying is that mixing religious class with science class is bad.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Xinithian


Now, a religious class is a totally separate thing from science class. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a religious class. What I'm saying is that mixing religious class with science class is bad.

ackk but thats exaktly what am saying! ya cant teatch religuon in a science class thats why where teatching them sepretly iv been saying that all along havent i?

and ofcurse ya cant teatch realigus belifes in sicence thats ridecelus

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by shadow
ackk but thats exaktly what am saying! ya cant teatch religuon in a science class thats why where teatching them sepretly iv been saying that all along havent i?

and ofcurse ya cant teatch realigus belifes in sicence thats ridecelus

As ridiculous as it sounds, Creationists are trying to integrate religion in science classes here in America. In fact, not only are they trying to integrate religion into science classes, but religious organizations are lobbying to ONLY teach abstinence in public schools, without teaching about condoms, etc. Now do you see why we're so upset?

[LunarCat]

I really don't have much to add....I side with SpiritWolf and Xini on this one. Evolution should be taught, and creationism kept out of a science class. However, the evolutionary theory shouldn't be forced upon anyone whose religious beliefs contradict it. These students should learn what the evolutionary theory is so they know what the other opinion is and they should choose for themselves. And just as evolutionary theory shouldn't be forced upon someone, neither should creationism.

People should learn all they can, and see both sides of the argument and make a decision for themselves.

In my experience, i've always been taught evolution in science class. the teachers simply mentioned that you don't have to agree with it if it is against your own personal beliefs. I can't remember exactly, but i'm pretty sure evolution was included on our tests and exams. When I was younger I was taught creationism(NOT in school, but by family/church). But it doesn't seem plausible to me now.
(informational note: I attend an independent school)

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Xinithian
Now do you see why we're so upset?

hey i know why your upset i did from the begining i just didnt know that it was akshely that bad man i feel sorry for you guys

[HasiraKali]

It's not bad everywhere. I was taught the basic concepts of evolution all through school. I even took a class on JUST evolution at my very Catholic university taught by a very Catholic professor. Some people/organizations are ok with teaching both sides of the argument. In my class, we had to read out text which was of course all theory and scientific evidence, and then go and read the counter-claims by the ID/Creation movement so we could see where both sides were coming from. I never bought the Creation stuff, even when I was a kid.

I remember one debate we got in about a museum in Houston I believe that was forced to pull a film that vaguely mentioned evolution because some church groups got up in a tizzy. I was the only one that agreed with their decision and that's only because I know where they're coming from. At work, we're not allowed to talk about animals "evolving". We are allowed to talk about them "adapting over time" which is exactly the same thing and we've never had any complaints from using that terminology. I think the word itself has developed a bad connotation in recent years. It's funny how people are ok with one phrase, but not with one word that basically means the same thing.