Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?
Darwin criticisms
More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.
Evolution has some seriously structural flaws and was created before DNA was even known about. Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution presenting while the theory itself is presented.
Nick
More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.
Evolution has some seriously structural flaws and was created before DNA was even known about. Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution presenting while the theory itself is presented.
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Darwin criticisms
More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.
Evolution has some seriously structural flaws and was created before DNA was even known about. Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution presenting while the theory itself is presented.
Nick
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.
Originally posted by trumptman
Darwin criticisms
More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.
Evolution has some seriously structural flaws and was created before DNA was even known about. Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution presenting while the theory itself is presented.
Nick
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...
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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.
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
Originally posted by billybobsky
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...
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.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
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
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
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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.
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....
Originally posted by trumptman
More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.
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.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Evolution is junk science with an agenda.
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.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
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
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.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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
Originally posted by trumptman
More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.
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.
Originally posted by trumptman
Evolution has some seriously structural flaws
Like what? WHAT?
Originally posted by trumptman
and was created before DNA was even known about.
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.
Originally posted by trumptman
Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution presenting while the theory itself is presented.
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.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
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.
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.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
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
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
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
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.
First and foremost, I would like for you to prove your assertion that the only people on the planet who criticize evolutionary science are Christians. My criticism of evolution has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with scientific criteria. The article also mentioned the following...
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.
You are welcome to cite DNA as evidence for evolution however upon further examination this isn't so. It shows a naive understanding of DNA. It allowed him to make simplistic assertions, much like we asserted that the sun goes around the earth at one time. He made claims about random mutation that don't pan out well. The cells have numerous system to insure random mutations do not occur. Likewise when one of these failsafes do not work the results are cancer, not positive attributes. Even scientist manually manipulating what should be an easily repeatable natural process have been unable to bring about positive mutations.
Nick
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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 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
Originally posted by Existence
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.
Stereotypes = not thinking.
Thank you for reaffirming this.
Nick
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Evolution is junk science with an agenda.
AhahAhahAHhafahfdahag ahahahgahahsahj gagjahghdjaghjdgahahahahahahhah ahshashavcbn ahshhaahhaaahah aahahhsaghsghagshhaha shghahdg haasbwahjwheah hahsahdhahdvhad hwahabaahahha sahhdsbahfsdfv jfbsjbfjsfgkesgjfgvhvfhmavshmcvhhaha ahhahahahvhadghagdh ahahhasahhj hahaha
Originally posted by trumptman
Darwin criticisms
Hopes deflated. There are no criticisms of evolutionary theory in this article. Just 1 or 2 quotes of people saying evolution isn't perfect.
More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.
Sure, that's fine. So, is "microevolution" in play here or not?
Evolution has some seriously structural flaws and was created before DNA was even known about. Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution presenting while the theory itself is presented.
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.
Originally posted by trumptman
First and foremost, I would like for you to prove your assertion that the only people on the planet who criticize evolutionary science are Christians. My criticism of evolution has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with scientific criteria. The article also mentioned the following...
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.