Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?

Evoutions or any others scientifical theories should be criticize only in high level scientifical classes.

Before criticizing a theory you should know it very well and deeply. It's a pedagogic question :
- 1) you learn the basic knowledge of any fields
- 2) you learn them deeper in order to know them very well
- 3) you analyse your knowledge and made critics about the weak points inherents of any theories.

You cannot made fair criticism of a theory in front of students who have not the recquired level. You can just add that i teach you evolution theory but others scientists disagree with it.

i am a posting god today ... anyway.
a couple of things -- there are several theories of evolution currently out there, not all of them are darwinian (and darwins was not the first), some have derived from darwinism. i actually was never introduced to the idea of evolution in school, my parents introduced it when i was very young. most scientific theories (especially biological) are not presented completely in primary education for the express reason that they are very much in debate, so actually, if you really want my opinion, i think that no story of creation/evolution should be taught in school. we avoided discussing abortion as a legitamate birth control devise, so we can avoid talking about evolution especially since church and state shouldnt mix and this is one theory that stands on the precipous(sp???). parents who disagree with it will tell their children one thing and parents who dont will tell their children another thing.
i know where i stand on that issue...

anyway, i wouldnt say that evolution was created, just as i wouldnt say newtonian mechinics was created or the theory of relativity was created... also, you have to realize by now that when the structure of DNA (that is what i think you are refering to when you say DNA was discovered (since dna was known about before darwin, their role wasnt, but they were definitely observed)) was determined there was still much debate as to whether the genetic information was carried in proteins on in the base pairs of the helix of DNA. in fact some of the stalwarts that said that proteins carry the genetic info are still alive, and even further some are still actively researching... science progresses to fast often to allow the establishment of a school curriculum that (excuse this expression) evolves with the knowledge...

again any evolutionary theory (religious or otherwise) should not be taught in school... students who want the facts can find them out on their own...

This time I disagree with Powerdoc 100% I do not for example have to know every single detail in great length of the methods, principles, and actions of the Democratic party in The United States to criticize the party.

The same is true with Evolution.

Evolution is junk science with an agenda.

Fellowship

Let's resume : don't teach evolution theory, there is a strong debate, dont teach big bang theory : some people disagree, don't teach Einstein theory : some poeple do not agree.
In clear teach nothing : everybody will be happy.

I thought my high school actually did a fairly decent job handling evolution. My teacher began by telling us that there is no one, unanimous view on how we got where we are and that evolution is just a theory, not fact. She explained to us the basics, along with some of the problems. She also mentioned that if we wanted more information or to discuss it further, they could always see her after class. I think that's the best way to handle it. Evolution is pretty much a necessary thing to teach in school--even if we don't all agree with it, it's a pretty huge topic and in order to be a well rounded individual, you need to be armed with the basics so that you can start forming your own opinions. I don't think there's an "evolution agenda" in our schools, just a desire to teach students the basics of what's out there.

you do however have to understand what theories are out there in order to judge apprpriately and you do need to think about it. not an immediate response, but it needs to be considered, appreciated, etc... i wouldnt say a five year old saying prayers understands what he is doing, in terms of knowing a higher being or understanding the implications of praying to it. it takes time to understand and form a relationship with a high being, no? it also takes time to truly appreciate a scientific theory, even a flawed scientific theory, in the face of everything at least evolution has given scientist an inkling that species are related to one another, and that this is useful info for a variety of reasons...

half of science is belief, belief in cell theory, belief in molecules, belief that evolution is correct....

and all belief systems have agendas

okay... let me clarify... where religion is concerned no these things shouldnt be taught -- einsteins theory is poorly taught in the us anyway (esp since it cant be understood without math), so i will ignore that example....
of course there is a weakness in this approach....

If you cirtize evolution unbaised scientific basis, you have no place in science or in schools. Yes, you are a religious freak or desire religion to be taught in science class if you don't believe in evolution.

Here we go again.


In contrast to the Christian idea of how we got here, which is never presented with any kind of agenda of at all.

Poppycock.

Evolutionary theory is not junk science. You can choose to disagree with it (and this takes effort, a steely disregard all of the facts you find inconvenient and wilful blindness to the beauty, majesty and incredible old age of the cosmos) but "junk science" it certainly is not.

Your analogy is wrong. You don't have to know by heart a party in order to appreciate it or not. Your decision is generally based upon some values :
- more state, less state
- pro-life/pro-choice
- death penalty/ no death penalty
- more welfare/ less welfare
- more taxes/ less taxes


If you definitely do not share many values with one party, you won't vote for him. It's clear and simple. You don't have to be a genius or a bachelor in order to make your choice. You choice is made at the light of your values principaly.
Personaly i would vote for a bad politician of my party over a good one of the other party.

I still strongly disagree with what you said earlier Powerdoc. I am not trying to give you a hard time I just make it clear I do not buy what you said. Some things are done for the wrong reasons. If you only knew the agenda of much of the evolution group. These people come up with theories that are not factual in any sense to prove ends they have to fabricate the means. It is junk science.

Fellowship

It certainly does. The only people on this planet who object to the teaching of evolutionary science are Christians. No other religion has a problem integrating the last century's scientific discoveries with their faith like Chrisitians.


Like what? WHAT?


Oh dear. Darwin theorised about heredity and mutation a hundred years before the discovery of a biological mechanism that facilitates the former and makes the latter inevitable, providing one of the most important scientific supports for his theory.


The evidence 'against' it isn't evidence. There IS no serious evidence that evolutionary science is 'wrong'. It's the best explanation there is. This doesn't mean it's perfect, of course, but it certainly doesn't stop it being correct in principle.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Scientists are just PEOPLE. Some are even Christians, for Heaven's sake. THERE IS NO AGENDA INVOLVED. It's just science. A particularly fascinating branch of science, but just science nonetheless.

IT'S NOT FRIGGING JUNK SCIENCE.

My answer was a general answer to a general question. Critics of theory in classroom. There wasn't any agenda in my answer. I wish either that there wans't any agenda in the Trumptman's question either.

There was already a thread or some threads about evolution/creationist theories. I don't want a new thread about that subject. If this thread mutate (no bad play on word intended ) i will closed it. Anyway i will not come back here until some hours, but Groverat will keep an eye on it (as always).

I don't understand this desire to close this issue.

I think open minded people don't go around closing things.

It is not porn.

Fellowship

AhahAhahAHhafahfdahag ahahahgahahsahj gagjahghdjaghjdgahahahahahahhah ahshashavcbn ahshhaahhaaahah aahahhsaghsghagshhaha shghahdg haasbwahjwheah hahsahdhahdvhad hwahabaahahha sahhdsbahfsdfv jfbsjbfjsfgkesgjfgvhvfhmavshmcvhhaha ahhahahahvhadghagdh ahahhasahhj hahaha

Hopes deflated. There are no criticisms of evolutionary theory in this article. Just 1 or 2 quotes of people saying evolution isn't perfect.


Sure, that's fine. So, is "microevolution" in play here or not?


I wouldn't worry about it. Evolutionary theory will evolve to fit the facts sooner or later.

As for the question, yes, criticisms of the theory should always be taught. All systems of science fall short sooner or later because they are developed based on known observations. Once observations go beyond the domain of the theory, it breaks down. This should always be taught.

My assertion was that the only people who don't want evolution taught in schools are Christians, mostly in America. If you tried that nonsense in the UK the outcry would be unbeliveable. Anyway, Islamic schools love evolution because all of science is in the Holy Qur'an. Hindusim loves evolution. Plenty of websites like this.

from trumptman:
"The seeds for the Cobb County success were sown in September 2001, when the Seattle-based Discovery Institute compiled a list of 100 U.S. scientists who said they were skeptical that the cornerstones of evolution random mutation and natural selection could account for the complexity of life. The list included professors and researchers at Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M."


okay... so there is also a group of powerhouse scientist who suggest aging is caused by the build up of proteins that malform and are not processable... and there are scientist who completely disagree that this could explain the complex phenomena of death ... just because something does seem like it can account for something else doesnt mean it cant... i can cite wolfram (although his ego need not be increased) who showed that complexity doesnt have to come from complexity, ie simple rules create complex phenomena... take a tree for instance, its overall structure is determined by a single diffusable protein -- one -- from leaves and flowers, to the roots... so just because people (scientist) doubt something could explain something else doesnt mean it doesnt...

evolution isnt a science, it is a theory within a science, it has scientific evidence supporting it, but it is just a theory. there is no law of evolution, no mathmetical proscription for the way things occur or occured, it never has been claimed to be complete and anyone who suggests it is is a moron. as darwin probably argued in the mid 1800s, if you understand artificial selection, ie the forming of a breed of dog by controlled reproduction that eventually leads to two divergent phenotypes think cho and great dame, why is it hard to imagine just once that the pressures applied by nature on species, be it changing climate, predation etc, affects which individuals breed with which individuals and so on until a new species comes from an old one... at this point scientist argue what defines a species, but that isnt necessary here. there are many scientist that believe god created evolution. there are some that think that since a god isnt necessary it complicates things that are best described more simply. evolution is a simple idea.

The problem with evolution in schools is that is MOST cases, and in textbooks, it is NOT taught as a theory, it is taught as FACT.. they will occasionally call it a theory, but through out most scientific books they teach it as fact, and they use their basis for fact. here is something to consider:

Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.

Oh dear. I'm about to start arguing with you on a subject I actually know quite a lot about. How heartening.


Thank-you.


Going to have stop you there, DNA was discovered a century after the 'On the Origin of Species' was published so it didn't allow Darwin to make any kind of assertions at all, sorry and all, keep up.


'Random mutation' is a real favourite bugbear of the Creationists websites. Bullshit website. You've been Googling, I see.

Evolutionary science has moved on a hell of a long way since 'Origin of Species', for a start, and adaptation doesn't rely on random mutation anyway (which certainly DOES occur and is particularly visible in simpler organisms and virii, which is why there are already several strains of SARS, although the effects are likely to be catastrophic in big ole' human beans).


Oh, this is just crap. I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

How about this idea.


That Evolution in itself could be treated as a religion.
If you ever hear scientists talk about it, it could be so, why you ask.

Many times they will tell you stuff like "Over millions of years, nature figured out what did work and what didnt and chose to keep what did", when saying stuff like that, they make it seem like there is some intelligince making decisions. we get similiar statements like this all the time. so could it be that people who bash christians for not wanting it, could also be bashed for trying to force their 'religious beleifs' onto others....?

Personally I went to a christian JH school, and they taught evolution, but they taught it as a theory that Darwin thought of, they also covered big bang,ect.
they also covered Creation, and also they also covered other religions creation theories. thats the way it should be done.

if you're arguing for full spectrum education on principle, sex education should include more than just abstinence, but should logically include discussions of birth control, homosexuality, how-to, etc.

why do i have the feeling that the same folks who are trying to include a 10,000 year old earth in Science class would suddenly balk at equally fringe 'alternatives' being taught anywhere else.

religious agendas have no place in schools.

Powerdoc is correct in suggesting a structured critique once the fundamentals have been absorbed.

well, if you wanna argue that way, why is it that people say its ok to kill babies, dont want anyone to kill animals? all this boils down to is there are lots of people out there that say "You should have an open mind", yet the people that are saying that are usually more close minded than the people they are accusing of being closed minded.

these i can tackle, the first is actually a misnomer... layers of rock are found around the world from the same eras, ie a large volcano spews hot death into the sky, around the world the soil is covered with the ash that leaves a layer of setiment found throughout the world. lets say a plant falls into the soil and is preserved as a fossil, its argon trapped in stone. some intrepid geologist finds this fossil in this layer, discovers the ratio of argon to (whatever radioactive argon decomposes to, i think its N15). that layer is now dated because the decay of radioactive argon occurs at a known rate. 5000 miles away, in the same layer of soil is found a fossil of an old rodent, easy enough to just date it to the age of the previous fossils found in that layer. this is scientific fact, and there are very few exceptions where this wouldnt work and its not circular at all, there is the data imput of the common soil type (geologic age) and the argon/n15 ratio in the plant fossil, from that everything in that layer can be dated....

the second goes back to the definition of species, which should not be discussed here. but your definition isnt universally accepted, nor is it necessarily true except in distally related creatures, a horse and a donkey can reproduce to give a mule which is infertile, but (that should be underlined) there is a sizable chance that that mule could be fertile if the gametes of its parents had chromosomal problems (ie extra chromosomes or less chromosomes), badda bing you've got yourself a new species from two parents that arent the same species but closely related... but this isnt a case where evolutionist would argue to be right, because most evolution is thought to occur over long periods of time with brief bursts here and there, that is, in cases where the species would still be able to reproduce with itself to make a fertile creature... slow changes, one after another (some maybe simultaneously) give a new species, or the thought goes...

Bollocks.

The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.

There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.

Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.

Anyway I've argued this through a million times and it's very frustrating so i'm not going to dip back into this thread. Toodleoo.

Here is a good question, why is it people who beleive in evolution treat people that do not beleive in it as idiots, morons or a religous zealot, yet, they then cry about people who put them down for not agreeing with someone elses belief, if ya cant take it,then dont dish it out.

As a Christian, one of the things I don't understand is why so many other Christians are afraid to mix God with science. Some say the Big Bang couldn't have happened because that leave out God. God works well beyond our understanding. It is entirely possible that He set the world into motion using the Big Bang or something like it. It is entirely possible that He created the world and everything in it with the potential to change, adapt, yes, even evolve. That doesn't mean that evolution is the only answer for how we got here, nor does it mean that evolution is a complete farce. God gave us minds to use to try to figure things out. But He created a very complex world and I doubt we will ever have true knowledge of what happened when. But I would love to see more Christians look at the world and recognize that not everything in it is inherently wrong or evil. Not everything science discovers is absolute or right, but neither is it all wrong.

Actually Evolutionary science does not fit either.. either way it all comes down to FAITH, and what YOU BELEIVE... think about that....

I dont think all christians look at science that way..
but the problem comes along when many scientists keep changing their theories or stories. For example, how many times have scientist changed their 'facts' about how old the earth is... anyone remember the rock that nasa 'found' in the artic, and stated that it was from mars, and came to earth some billions of years ago, and it proved mars had life because this found rock had microbes on it.. HMM, well since it came to earth supposedly long ago, wouldn't that mean it was TANTED???? stuff like that is why many people think most scientists are fruitloops

It is frustrating. I waiver between looking at it with a sense of bemused superiority, and being extremely angry at how much influence fringe beliefs have in the US.

Right now, about 50% of the US population are young earth creationists. 40% believe that creationism, and not evolution at all, should be taught in public schools. Creationism has become a very mainstream belief in the US. I don't know why. :/

And what's funny is that it's not mainstream Christianity - most Christian denominations including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, etc. etc. have officially accepted evolution. I think many religious people in the US believe that evolution necessarily contradicts their religion, when their own theologians don't think it does. It's very strange. :/

This coming from someone who actually quoted sources like "biblephysics" when trying to refute evolutionary theory in that behemoth of a thread. HA! You believe in christianity. That's your end. You now try to manipulate the universe to fit in it. Sorry, it doesn't work EITHER WAY.

What's wrong with porn?