How about teaching evolution at Sunday school?

quote:

---

I formed my opinion after attending public schools. Try to discuss creationism with a publich school teacher. Immediately their face will well up with fear and they adopt the "deer in the headlights" look. I never once could get a teacher to talk about it (which I found odd since I was always trying to debunk it).

---

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that this was the case. There are probably numerous reasons for it, however. One of the primary reasons is that the overwhelming majority of science teachers simply don't have the detailed backgrounds needed to address creationist assertions. Secondly, even a trained biologist may never have framed the knowledge they have in those terms (my daughter's biology teacher is an example - good science teacher, MS in biology, but never had to deal with or even think about creationism). Third, although I admittedly have nothing but anecdotal evidence, they may be in some cases terrified at the possibility of losing their jobs in some school districts that have a vocal minority of parents who would take offense at a teacher who appeared to "attack" the faith of their children. I'd say most high school science teachers would prefer if the question never came up - and are hence unable to address the issue when it does. "Deer in the headlights" is probably a pretty good description.Now if it were ME, on the other hand...

quote:

---

Generally everthing in public school is poorly taught. I do agree with your statement about evo biology, however, I can remember being in third grade and taking a field trip to a museum. My class was informed we were descendents of apes complete with the little ape to man poster on the wall. I really have not made any conclusions as to where my origins lie (evo or creation). I try to keep an open mind, however, i'll be damned if some scientist is going to tell me i'm nothing more than a very smart poo-flinging monkey.

---

Well, I'd say it probably depends on the school, but I won't argue with your point - I don't have the referents. On the other hand, how about: "we're nothing more than a very smart primate that has learned not to fling poo...".Facetiousness aside, what is your objection to the realization that we are completely natural organisms in every sense of the word - an inseperable part and parcel of the incredible diversity of life on this planet? I think the idea lends a certain majesty to the whole existence thing. It certainly gives us bragging rights, as well as explaining all those really unpleasant aspects of our behavior...

quote:

---

GOING OFF-TOPIC ALERT!

​

Adminnemooseus

---

quote:

---

I can remember being in third grade and taking a field trip to a museum. My class was informed we were descendents of apes complete with the little ape to man poster on the wall.

---

Hmmm. Our local paper just ran a story about the third-graders here going on a field trip to a creationist museum near here. Apparently they were told that nearly all fossils on earth were deposited in some single, unspecified flood.... And there was a picture of several kids in front of a "fossilized human femur" about four feet long. Hmmmm.

quote:

---

Facetiousness aside, what is your objection to the realization that we are completely natural organisms in every sense of the word - an inseperable part and parcel of the incredible diversity of life on this planet? I think the idea lends a certain majesty to the whole existence thing. It certainly gives us bragging rights, as well as explaining all those really unpleasant aspects of our behavior...

---

I contest no objection to the above. The public schools, in my opinion, shouldn't teach anything regarding evolution or creation unless ready to explain both in conjunction. It's either a both or none at all in my book. Don't get me wrong. Religion should not be taught in public schools. The student population is too diverse to concentrate on creation in the classroom, however, the same can be said about evolution. Private school is exclusive and believing in God does not earn you a free ticket to it.

quote:

---

Hmmm. Our local paper just ran a story about the third-graders here going on a field trip to a creationist museum near here. Apparently they were told that nearly all fossils on earth were deposited in some single, unspecified flood.... And there was a picture of several kids in front of a "fossilized human femur" about four feet long. Hmmmm.

---

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Was the school public or private? Did the children also learn about evolution during their third grade tenure? Was the human femur fossil from the same time period and site?

It's a public school, and an avowedly creationist museum. I don't know at all what the kids have learned in class (or even in detail what they heard at the museum) other than what little was in the paper.
As to the "femur," there was just a picture of a femurish-looking bone, of gigantic size, displayed on a 15-foot or so tall outline of a human skeleton. I'll try to get to scenic Crosbyton, TX in the next few weeks and bring back a full report on this marvel. The article sort of indicated that the museum curator thinks that all fossils are from the same time, but the exhibits are from various places.

I think admin is trying to tell us we're off topic. ------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

While Quetzal was correct about my OP, your post still raises
the point I was alluding to.If public schools (that means something different in the UK
but I get the drift) should only teach evo. and creo. together
why should church schools be allowed to avoid the subject.It is a double standard, and unethical. Isn't ethics a stronger
part of spiritual education than scripture and doctrine?

beliefs vs. sciencefor some, beliefs run deeper than underground rivers or the ocean floor, for others their belief change everyday.science, empirical science will always change, and what might be evolution today might be revolution tomorrow.the fact is, even sciencetists and journalists can not get around seeing from their point of view or belief system. Even if that belief system is purely science.I believe in God and I don't consider myself a creationist or evolutionist. I actually used to love science and math as a kid, till some of my teachers killed that enthuaism, before then I was actually invited numerious amounts of times to the governors school program of maths and sciences in Virginia. Instead of becoming purely science, it became political.Now i realize that there are people who are still in the field, who do it for pure science, but overall its become such a freak show that stem from emotions and the latest theories one strives to completely overcome the other's beliefs.science in its purest form would reguard evolution as a theory and would strickly enforce that it would taught so. Its not a law or fact, but a theory. It should be taught as a theory, unlike most teachers who teach it today as fact because of their own beliefs and politics to push their agenda to justify themselves in someway. Most likely creationism or christianity was shoved down their throat, so I don't blame them, but anytime you teach something for what its not, its not really teaching anymore, its becomes preaching ones beliefs in the classroom and it goes both ways.It should also be taught that most current mutations are harzadous to keep kids from thinking that they are going to turn into the X-men some day. Cancer is a mutation.Should ee teach creationism in school? Well yes and no. They should be taught that its a belief, they should be taught that its not a theory. They should be challenged, if that is what they really believe, then they should form a hypothesis and move on from there with the scientific process.Children should have the right to have as many facts available to them to be laid so that they can make their own choice. Not all the Pros of one side or the other.Both sides are killing science and the fascination with how things work and instead of working together for the benefit of everyone, rather than pushing around their personal agendas and grudges which both are guilty for.Both should be the ones who ones holding back cricticism on one another... Christians are supposed to be loving and respectful and often do not follow their own code because of hypocrisy, as scienctists who claim to be purely for the science, be patient and willing to teach rather than mock from self-righteous pedistool of theories. again not all people are like this, but much of which what is shown today.There is just a lack of professional courteousy, respect, and mutual ground.out of curiousity since time is the rate of change....what is the control for this?

quote:

---

It should also be taught that most current mutations are harzadous to keep kids from thinking that they are going to turn into the X-men some day. Cancer is a mutation.

---

If any kid honestly thinks they're going to start firing uncontrollable force beams out of their eyes when they hit puberty, or sprout a giant orange bird of fire out of their mind when they get buffeted by cosmic rays while fighting the sentinels, their education needs to start a hell of a lot lower down than evolution.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-11-2003]

"If any kid honestly thinks they're going to start growing metal claws out of their hands when they hit puberty,..."Actually, Wolverine's mutation is regeneration. The metal claws were part of a military experiment. People get this wrong all the time.Don't mind me. Get back to meaningful discussion. I'm just waiting for files to transer.

I know, that's why I just changed it to Cyclops instead.

quote:

---

science, empirical science will always change, and what might be evolution today might be revolution tomorrow.

---

Except that evolution has been rigorously tested for a century and a half, and the only people who seriously oppose it today are those who have a pre-existing emotional need to believe it is wrong, or have been deceived by well-meaning believers.

quote:

---

the fact is, even sciencetists and journalists can not get around seeing from their point of view or belief system. Even if that belief system is purely science.

---

Don't set up a false dichotomy here. There aren't just two points of view, and most informed people of almost every belief system are satisfied with the evidence for evolution. My belief system has changed much throughout my life, and the evidence has always been convincing to me. I managed to be a YEC for a while because I was deceived by misuse of anecdotal evidence and unsupported assertions that I had an emotional need to accept.

quote:

---

I believe in God and I don't consider myself a creationist or evolutionist. I actually used to love science and math as a kid, till some of my teachers killed that enthuaism, before then I was actually invited numerious amounts of times to the governors school program of maths and sciences in Virginia. Instead of becoming purely science, it became political.

---

So sorry to hear about that. It's happened to a lot of people. Three years after college, I'm only starting to regain the interest I had as a kid.

quote:

---

Now i realize that there are people who are still in the field, who do it for pure science, but overall its become such a freak show that stem from emotions and the latest theories one strives to completely overcome the other's beliefs.

---

Do you really believe that most scientists are so emotional and irrational as you're painting it? I mean, I can accept some being a little bit eccentric, but that's what peer review is for. Most published work is scrutinized by other scientists and held to very high standards.

quote:

---

science in its purest form would reguard evolution as a theory and would strickly enforce that it would taught so. Its not a law or fact, but a theory. It should be taught as a theory, unlike most teachers who teach it today as fact because of their own beliefs and politics to push their agenda to justify themselves in someway.

---

Actually, whenever the subject comes up here, it seems most people felt they were undereducated in grade school with regard to evolution. I recall learning more about evolution from casually skimming my biology book than was actually taught in class. Actually, come to think of it, I don't remember any evolution entering my classes until my freshman year of college. The only reason I knew anything was my own reading before then.

quote:

---

It should also be taught that most current mutations are harzadous to keep kids from thinking that they are going to turn into the X-men some day.

---

I seriously doubt today's kids are that ignorant.

quote:

---

Should ee teach creationism in school? Well yes and no. They should be taught that its a belief, they should be taught that its not a theory.

---

And they should be taught this in religion classes.

quote:

---

They should be challenged, if that is what they really believe, then they should form a hypothesis and move on from there with the scientific process.

​

Children should have the right to have as many facts available to them to be laid so that they can make their own choice. Not all the Pros of one side or the other.

---

The problem is that when you lay it out that way, if you insist on the false dichotomy view of things, there is absolutely zero evidence for a supernatural creation. The only evidence presented by "creation science" is actually evidence claimed to discredit some aspect of the theory of evolution or of related issues like the age of the earth. Virtually all of it can be rebutted by even an educated layman.

quote:

---

Both sides are killing science and the fascination with how things work and instead of working together for the benefit of everyone, rather than pushing around their personal agendas and grudges which both are guilty for.

---

Actually, most scientists don't pay much attention to the remaining debate because it seems so silly to them. Those who do may often appear condescending because they are generally so much better informed than their opponents and tire of hearing the same debunked arguments repeated for decades.

quote:

---

out of curiousity since time is the rate of change....what is the control for this?

---

Could you rephrase the question? It's rather confusing.

quote:

---

Now i realize that there are people who are still in the field, who do it for pure science, but overall its become such a freak show that stem from emotions and the latest theories one strives to completely overcome the other's beliefs.

---

Could you expand on what you mean by "freak show"? I mean, there are some freaky scientists out there, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

quote:

---

Its not a law or fact, but a theory.

---

And this seems to reflect the mistaken notion that in science, there's a hierarchy of certainty, running: hypothesis->theory->fact/law. Wrong.A Theory is an explanation. If a certain theory is extremely well supported, or parts of it are, it may be referred to as a fact. The Germ Theory of Disease posits that microrganisms growing in our bodies result in illness. That dysentery is caused by a microorganisms is a fact.There are controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory. Other parts are not controversial. Common descent is not controversial. That species are not permanent is not controversial. The existence of natural selection is not controversial. The rough timescale is not controversial. Etc.Any one of these points is potentially open to debate (see the rest of this site), but you can't say that because the "Theory of evolution" exists that these things I list above aren't "facts".

xxdeadmnwalkinxx writes:

quote:

---

science in its purest form would reguard evolution as a theory and would strickly enforce that it would taught so.

---

You mean like gravitationaly "theory"? The germ "theory" of disease? The photon "theory" of light? Quantum "theory"?Do you really think that if you were to jump off of the Empire State Building, you wouldn't plummet to the ground simply because gravity is "just a theory"?You seem to have a bizarre understanding of what a theory is. From Merriam-Webster:1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

​

It would appear that you seem to think that when science speaks of a "theory," it means something along the lines of definitions 2, 4, 6a, or 6b.

​

Instead, science means something along the lines of definitions 1, 3, 5, and 6c.

​

Take, for example, gravity. When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." That's an observed fact...after all, the ball fell.

​

But what is gravity? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with F = Gm₁m₂/r². That's the theory of gravity.

​

And it turns out, it's wrong. The Pioneer spacecraft are leaving the solar system and they're moving at a rate that isn't consistent with our current understanding of gravitational theory.

​

But notice that despite any changes we make with our theories of gravity, the original observation still holds: When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground.

​

The same thing exists with evolution. When we watch organisms over time, they change. We call the process by which those organisms change "evolution." That's an observed fact...after all, the organisms changed.

​

But what is evolution? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with mutation and selection. That's the theory of evolution.

​

Notice that despite any changes we may make with our theories of evolution, the original observation still holds: When we watch organisms over time, they change.

​

The point? You can't have a theory without a fact to back it up. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is evolution. If you aren't going to complain about all the other theories in science, why are you picking on evolution? In fact, evolution is more solidly grounded than our theories of gravity: We have a mechanism. When Darwin first formulated his theory of evolution, he still thought that there was some form of pangenesis going on. That is, the gametes in sexually reproducing species were created by taking material from the entire body. This was used by Lamarck in his description of evolution that traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be passed onto the next generation, thus giraffes got their long necks because the first generation physically stretched their necks reaching for leaves and this acquired trait was passed to their children who stretched them even more, etc.

​

Darwin didn't agree with this idea...acquired traits are obviously not passed on or parents who had lost a limb would be more likely to have children without that limb. But still, he thought that whatever was used to transfer morphological traits from one generation to the next was distilled from the entire body. Remember, the chromosome hadn't been discovered yet. It turns out he was wrong. The gonads create the gametes by taking a single cell and subjecting it to meiosis.

​

We found the direct cause of evolution: The chromosome and how it mutates over time. We are still discovering the various types of selective pressures that exist, but we have actually found some.

​

What is gravity? Is it as Einstein described, a folding of space-time? Is it a force carried on a particle much like the other forces of electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear? We have absolutely no idea. We've got some great information about how it behaves, but we don't know what it is! We have no mechanism for gravity.

​

So yes, let's teach evolution for the theory that it is. But that doesn't mean creationism gets to be considered a theory. In science, a theory is something that has been tested a great deal and not found wanting. It might be wrong since theories can never be proven correct, but the theory is as accurate as we can possibly make it precisely because theories are tailored to fit all the facts that we know.

​

If you don't like what a theory says, then you need to find new data that the theory cannot be reconciled with. Note that this does not make creationism "true" just because our current theory of evolution is false. Again, the fact of evolution is still there: When we watch organisms over time, they change and that change is called "evolution." While the theories about the mechanism of evolution might change, evolution itself will always be the case.

​

quote:

---

It should also be taught that most current mutations are harzadous

---

​

But that would be a lie. Why are you suggesting that we lie to our children?

​

Instead, most mutations are neutral. In fact, the average human has 3-6 mutations compared to his parents. Are you suggesting we scare our children by suggesting that they are somehow "defective"?

​

quote:

---

to keep kids from thinking that they are going to turn into the X-men some day.

---

​

If anybody who understands anything about genetics thinks that the X-Men are nothing more than a fantasy, then we have completely failed in the teaching of biology and questions about evolution are the least of our worries.

​

quote:

---

Cancer is a mutation.

---

​

So is having blue eyes or blond hair or type-O blood or white skin or any other of a host of traits that are considered perfectly normal. There's a mutation that provides a different variant of the pigment used to see the color green. Thus, there are women that actually have a broader visual sensitivity (it's on the X chromosome) because they have both alleles.

​

quote:

---

Children should have the right to have as many facts available to them to be laid so that they can make their own choice.

---

​

Of course.

​

The thing is, all the facts point to evolution. That's why we have the theory. The theory is tailored to fit the facts. If the theory doesn't fit the facts, then it's a failed theory and is discarded.

​

You're absolutely right that children should be taught all the facts, but you seem to think that there are some facts that connect to creationism, that there is some "choice" to be made. Science doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as "fair" in science. The only thing that matters is the data. If you don't have the data, then you get ignored. It doesn't matter how deeply you believe. It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can prove. Just because a person has a cockamamie idea doesn't mean it gets any respect. Science has no obligation to listen to you just because you have an opinion. The only way you get science to pay attention is when you drop the opinion and pick up the facts.

​

quote:

---

Not all the Pros of one side or the other.

---

​

But if it's a valid theory, then it is nothing but pros. That's the point. The entire point behind a theory is to come up with something that is consistent with everything we know and makes predictions about the things we don't know so that we can actually test the theory to see if it is still accurate. If those tests fail, then we necessarily discard the theory since it isn't consistent with everything.

​

quote:

---

be patient and willing to teach rather than mock from self-righteous pedistool of theories.

---

​

When was the last time you read a journal article about evolutionary theory? Did you ever read anything even remotely like, "Since god doesn't exist..."? Where do you find any mockery at all?

​

Be specific. Do not confuse the science with the scientists.

​

quote:

---

out of curiousity since time is the rate of change....what is the control for this?

---

​

I don't understand what you mean. Time is not the rate of change. Perhaps you mean something else by that phrase than what I think.

​

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!