Should Public Schools stop teaching EVOLUTION?
91197
To answer this question is to resolve FIRST the issue: Is evolution part of a religious belief? If so then it should be banned from public school.\n\nIMHO, it is the opposite of creationism--also a religious belief. In other words both evolution and creationism are religious beliefs. The former being espoused by aetheists, and the latter by bible-believing people. This being the case, both should be banned from being taught in public school to STRICTLY observe the First Amendment. I understand that the core of this amendment is that the State should not favor (or dis-favor) one religious belief over another.\n\nBut, banning the teaching of evolution in public schools is not practical. It will not help children develop analytical minds. On the other hand, teaching evolution while at the same time banning the teaching of creationism is like teaching children that they use only their left hands and not their right hands.\n\nCommon sense and fairness calls for public schools to teach both Evolution and Creation. Let children develop their minds free from bias.\n\nSome on this site will insist that Evolution is not a religious belief it is a theory. But, you are only  playing with words. Would you also agree if someone will say that creationism is not a religious belief but a theory? \n-------------------------------------\nBTW, please read carefully the replies of Zac and the Marker. Their comments just proved my contention that evolution is really a religious belief--disguised as theory.\n---------------------------------------------------------\nwith kind regards.
49693
Well, I doubt many people want a full course on intelligent design. Rather, they are pushing for a brief (a few minutes) statement in bio classes along the lines of :\n\n"Not everyone agrees with evolution, and there are religious beliefs which conflict with it, as well as this intelligent design concept. Go read the Pandas and People book for more info if you want. Please don't sue us."
897391
I think that any rational, reasonable individual when presented with the weight of our current knowledge and understanding regards the process of evolution would reasonably have to conclude that evolution is indeed at work on global biology.\n\nHowever, evolution is not just restricted to biological systems.  Consider our collective sense of humour.  Things which were considered hilarious in the very early part of the 20th century (silent movies) some of that humour is now so old to have lost any humourous content.  Why is that?  Because we've moved on and our tastes have evolved to more complex and alternative themes based on our modern life etc.\n\nConsider financial systems.  They too are evolving.  Capitalism is another test bed for the survival of the fitest.  There are winners and losers just as there are in biology.\n\nThere are many more examples.  The reduction of the variety and extinction of languages etc.\n\nThe validity of Darwinianism is only questioned (or rather refuted) by those of a religious nature who have been indoctrinated against the idea and are determined to continue to deny its validity irrespective of the weight of evidence presented for it.\n\nLogic does not play a part in their argument.  Faith and belief without understanding is all that is required.  In my opinion people who carry on about their lives in this bubble of ignorance are neither rational nor reasonable individuals.  They are brainwashed into submission and ignorance.  And sadly they have a tendency to fight long and hard to stay that way.  Most although not all are beyond help.\n\nOne final example of evolution in action:  It has been predicted that science will have eradicated religion within a couple centuries, as increases in the availability of education and the spread of democracy continue.  Given the negative impact that such religious stigmatisation and dogma is currently having on main stream scientific advancement, as far as I'm concerned, societal evolution resulting in the demise religion can't happen soon enough.
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
711783
Evolution doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no need for it.  Genetic variation and mutation are always going to occur.  However, the 'natural selection' aspect of it may not be applicable.
1059094
If you don't trust the education system, just don't send your kids there... you don't need to cripple/alter the bad system. Let it extinct itself....
1076995
You are right!\n\nAnd do you know that they are teaching that languages were not created at the Tower of Bable but that they "evolve" as well?\n\nWe need to get the Bible back into the schools!\n\nGod bless
272648
Absolutely; I don't think too many topics should be off limits in high school.  HOWEVER: creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever you want to call it does NOT belong in science class, because it does NOT fall under the definition of what makes science science.  (And arguing that evolution isn't a perfect theory either is no defense--evolution still falls under the defintion of a scientific theory, while creationism does not.)  Further, the idea that science classes are the place to "teach the controversy" is baloney, because at that point you might as well teach the controversy that the Turtle God swallows the sun every night and poops it out again the next morning....Does this mean students have to be forced to accept evolution?  Not at all--but science accepts it (yes they do), therefore it belongs in science class.  \n\nThe place to teach the controversy is in social studies--and frankly, nowadays I think you'd be remiss if you DIDN'T bring it up there.  And of course if there's any public high school brave enough to have a religious studies class, then the controversy would certainly belong there.  In short: teach them both, just teach them in their proper places.
1044052
Put Creationism back in the schools and everthing will get better.  Grades will go up - what kid could fail a science test where every answer is "God created it that way"
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
828865
I don't think it'd be a particularly bad thing for there to be a religion course in public schools.  Religion is a huge part of modern society, and to be ignorant of (or worse, prejudiced about!) it is to lack understanding of a key factor in today's world.  You just can't fully understand events in Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, England, Tibet, Israel, France, Norway, the United States, or a myriad of other nations if you don't understand religion.  As for which religions should be taught, it should naturally be all the major ones, not just Christianity.
276163
My friends in Europe find it outrageous that America would even consider banning evolution from the classroom or teaching creationism along side it.  As far as I know, very few Europeans believe in creationism and reject evolution.  And I'm fairly sure the phenonomon of asking it be taught as science is uniquely American, and is aptly called a psychosis.\n\nshiba: I didn't say anything about the government banning the teaching of evolution (although many states have made frightening leaps in that direction).  However, many creationists do advocate it (spend a few minutes looking around this site if you don't believe me), and the government is taking them seriously enough to pass laws mandating that students be told things like "evolution is a theory, not a fact," and "there are many gaps in the theory of evolution."\n\nWhen you ask that creationism be taught along side evolution you're not asking for equal rights you're asking that Christianity be given more voice than other religions.  Creationism is based in religion.  Evolution is a part of science.  Science is not a religion.  Religion is not taught in public schools.  Teaching creationism in schools infringes on my right not to be Christian (unless, of course, you're prepared to mandate the teaching of Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, and Satanist ideology as well).  Every relgion has its own creation story.  To teach only the Christian one is not giving Chrisitanity equality, it's giving it exclusive favoritism.\n\nThere is no reason under the sun why the Christian story of creation should be taught in a science classroom.  But if it were, you would have to teach EVERY story of creation.  There is no more evidence to support the Christian creation story than there is to support the theory that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  And don't bother to quote the bible at me, that does not constitute scientific evidence.\n\nYou actually don't have the right to force every child in the country to listen to your religion in science class.  Sorry, but that's not a reasonable request.  You're not fighting for equality, you're fighting for government-sanctioned superiority.
162206
In the UK there is no interference from religious fundamentalism in our Science classrooms.\nWhen I taught Biology, every syllabus did consider Lamarkism, Creationism & Darwinian Evolution. But the emphasis was upon considering the evidence and the reasons for prefering evolution as the more likely.\n\nAs previous answerers have concluded, there is a failure of both the general public and of fundamentalist Christians to appreciate the concept of evolution (and the greater proportion of science for that matter).\n\nI am deeply concerned by the inroads that Creationism is making into Biology teaching in the USA. It is a scary thought that any religion could specify how we must think.\n\nI have every sympathy with your plight. Please do not give in to bigotry.\n\nADDITIONAL: I've just had a look at the website mentioned in the previous answer. I am appalled - it is nonsense. Very worrying.
11459
This question doesn't make any sense.\n\nFreedom of religion has nothing to do with what we teach in schools in a science class.  Freedom of religion applies to people's personal beliefs, and their ability to worship according to those beliefs.\n\nThis has nothing to do with the subject matter taught in physics or math or biology classes.\n\nEvolution is taught in biology classes because it is the best description of how life changes, and it has 150 years worth of research to back it up.\n\nspiderlover128's claim that "there is little to no real evidence to support evolution" is nonsense.  Genetics, paleontology, biogeography, anatomy -- all solidly support evolution.
788350
In general, people who attack evolution barely know anything about it as it is. I seriously doubt they'd take the time to learn about any *other* scientific theories.
846019
I have read Darwins original works on the subject. \nThe way it is taught in schools today is not what was written by the \nauthor. \nThe other authors you mention created works based on a theory that was never proven and which can nevr be proven. It is merely a theory written to explain the, for the most part, unexplainable.\nAs with almost everything else these days, the science is bad.\nIn your case, you are attempting to use unproved theories to \nprove an unproven theory. The science is bad.
1077534
No, because unlike those other things evolution is a myth.\n\nThe question I have is will the scientific community which embraces evolution be like the "scientific community" which embraced a flat world with four corners and the "scientific community" which embraced a earth centric universe. Remember, we don't have the documents of the thoughts of the common people from those long ago eras; we have the documents of their most "profound" thinkers. Today you are mocking them for their views.