Should evolution start being taught at a younger grade than high school?
Yes
Side Score: 14
|
 |
No
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
Sort of. They shouldn't get too much into it just because it is a complicated subject for kids. But I remember in my Middle School they did talk about Evolution and some of the basic principles. Really, when you learn more about Biology, you should learn about Evolution. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
yes, i think it should but only to an extent. evolution is science, not a religion. scientology is the religion and you can't say science shouldn't be taught in school. Plus there are multiple people that have learned to live with both their own religion and evolution. Side: yes
|
I disagree with teaching anyone about evolution, evolution is not a proven theory, natural selection is something that could be taught, natural selection has empirical data proving it, evolution does not. If you teach them about genetics and what not it shouldn't be too difficult and I would have no problem with it being done. Side: No
1
point
Natural selection is essential to evolution but evolution is not essential to it. Natural selection is what scientists really prove whereafter they make the assumption of evolution. Natural selection shows that the organisms best fitted for survival in the world will have a better chance of staying alive and reproducing often, whereas those that do not have these physical traits stand a higher chance of being weeded out of the genetic pool. Evolution is intrinsically linked with us evolving from single cell organisms, which there is no proof of. Side: No
Evolution is a proven theory. Most people arguing against evolution tend to say that it is not a proven fact- but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant fact rather than lacked a fundamental understanding of the word theory. If you do not feel that theories are adequate grounds for knowledge, then you may very well disregard religion as well. If you are skeptical enough to the point that all of the data compiled on evolution leaves you unable to accept that evolution is the most supported and correct method in which species form, then surely a single book about a mystical entity has even less sway for you. I do agree, however, that the simple aspects of evolution- such as genetics and survival of the fittest- should be incorporated into a middle school curriculum. To be perfectly honest, I thought it already was. My biology course taught a firm basis of molecular genetics, as well as the processes by which genetic diversity propagates and speciation occurs. Of course, we barely went over more difficult topics like plant hybridization, or barr bodies- but those are not necessarily needed to have a general understanding of evolution Side: yes
Mea Culpa, I did in fact word my statement poorly, Scientific Theory is the widely accepted explanations for data sets and things like how we came to be here, and evolution is in fact such a thing, whereas it is not proven fact, thank you for pointing out my mistake. However, my argument against evolution is not based on a religious sense, rather on a scientific one, the theory just has too many holes in it. I do not believe that it was possible that we somehow evolved from single cells to what we are today, the small differences that we see in natural selection fall far short of explaining how something as complex as our eyes came to be. When you think about it, it seems impossible that through natural selection and time, some organisms started to develop cells that could perceive the world around them in a visual sense. I do not know how we got here, but I do feel that evolution is a poor attempt at an explanation for how we did. Side: No
1
point
Most students do not have the necessary background knowledge of biological concepts needed to fully understand evolutionary theory before high school. But it needs to be taught better than it is now when they do get to High School. More than half of them graduate without so much as knowing what a transitionary species is. Side: No
|
