Should evolution and intelligent design be taught side-by-side in the classroom?
Yes, let students hear both.
Side Score: 33
|
 |
No, creationism has no place.
Side Score: 111
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Considering that Evolution is a Theory, it should not be taught as solid fact. When we are taught that an unproven theory is a fact, it causes stagnation... as we will not strive to find the truth of the matter. Wouldn't you rather put aside religious prejudices and give both sides equal bearing? A close minded view on either side will bring you nowhere closer to the truth! Side: Yes, let students hear both.
1
point
When you look at life, it has many varying degrees of complexity. To believe that it came from something simpler, speaks lunacy to me. Hypothetically speaking though, if it was complex from the beginning, wouldn't the first organism be given the abillity to adapt to their enviroment? Why do Creationism and Evolution always have to be at constant war? Is it the constant battle between Science and Religion? No one wins in that fight. All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. Albert Einstein Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind Albert Einstein Side: Yes, let students hear both.
You dont understand. Theory in this sense is a technical scientific meaning - Theory in this sense means the best understanding of how evolution occurs from all the evidence that has been collected and experiments that have been preformed. It is called a theory because there can be refinements if better details come about insofar as how is concerned. The fact of evolution is proven. Fact is a fact is a fact. Evolution is not questioned as a fact of nature, except by people who dont understand science and by people who want to deny science because it conflicts with their beliefs (these people are unjustified). Science uses theories and the facts about them to advance a discipline. it creates no stagnation to understand that a process is a fact, and an evidence based scientific (technical type) theory about how this process occurs is the only way to advance our understanding of the fact. Teaching both sides is allowing religion to enter into the discussion, but religion has nothing to do with how evolution occurs - so called "creation science" and "intelligent design" have nothing to do with how any process occurs. These two ideas have no scientific basis because rather than describe a process of how, they focus imposing the idea of who inspired it (this is properly theological, not scientific, thus it should not be tought in science class) Science is about how. religion can never objectively explain how anything came to be or the processes that happen in nature because religion is not science. I am not close-minded, i understand what science is and understand what religion is, evolution and all other objective understanding of the world is not for religion, it is for science, science is about objectivity. Religion has no verifiable claims. no process of identifying variables and testing hypothesis. There is such a thing as having too-open a mind. Side: No, creationism has no place.
2
points
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts: Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well. Side: No, creationism has no place.
1
point
Yet we see Gravitation at work every day whenever we drop something, whenever we just plain stand up straight and don't float off into space. We cannot observe Evolution in such a way. We have observed what we call Gravity at work... and even though we may not understand HOW it works yet, we DO understand that it works, It's effects can be measured and that it plays a crucial role in many sciences. Side: Yes, let students hear both.
1
point
You show a clear misunderstanding of what a theory is. In science, you must first make a hypothesis, something that is testable based on empirical observation. You then gather observations, perform experiments etc until you can publish your results in peer review literature. There, it is reviewed by other scientists, retested and re worked. If it stands up to scrutiny then it becomes a theory. A theory is the highest level of proof outside mathematics. Evolution is one of the most well supported theories in all of science, as it is required to make sense of biology, as particle theory is necessary to make sense of chemistry. If you are going to throw out well established theories, you are going to throw out gravity, germ theory, particle theory, atomic theory etc etc. Equating the word theory to "a wild guess" is what's called an equivocation fallacy. Side: No, creationism has no place.
Creationism should be taught. The Bible can be linked up with ancient history. Abraham, Joseph and Moses actually lived. Moses wrote the Book of Genesis showing us how life began. Abraham was the father of Ishmael (the Arabs) and Isaac (the Jews) Time caused a split between these two groups of people leading us to the evolution of the Arab revolution we see against Israel today. Side: Yes, let students hear both.
Abraham visited Egypt at age 75 when his wife Sarah was 65. Abraham had visited 96 year old Egyptian pharoah Pepi II. Abraham (Genesis 20:12) married his half sister Sarah and Pepi II married a half sister named Neith. This was the custom at the time in Mesopatamia and Egypt. Pepi II is listed as reigning 2278-2184 B.C. yet the Sakkara Egyptian kings list states After Pepi II died the next king was Mentuhotep II & the Abydos Egyptian kings list states the next king after Amenemhet IV was Ahmose. When we eliminate the kings who never existed Pepi II reign is 2007-1913 B.C. Abraham lived 1992-1817 B.C. (Genesis 25:7) danielpipes.org/comments/195225 (&) danielpipes.org/comments/195173 (Reveals where the Bible and Egyptian history match) Egyptian pharoah Pepi II died. Some of his artifacts were found at Byblos. Byblos was destroyed by an earthquake at the same time Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed about 20 years after Pepi II had died. Joseph shaved (Genesis 41:14) Joseph's pharoah was Senusret III who had a sister named Sit-Hathor-Yunet. A golden razor was found in her tomb. Moses was saved by a princess. (Exodus 2:5-10) Princess Hatshepsut saved Moses life. IF THE BIBLE REVEALS ACCURATE HISTORY-GENESIS MUST BE TRUE! Side: Yes, let students hear both.
1
point
1
point
I say let the students hear both arguments to make an informed decision. There should never be a time when students are only exposed to one set of beliefs concerning a matter if that matter is questionable. Now, intelligent design is not in the same category as evolution. Someone who believes in intelligent design may believe in evolution. The problem is not a "God of the gaps" as many atheists make it seem concerning intelligent design, rather, the problem is defining what it really is. Intelligent design means that it is more probable for the cause of life to have been by an intelliget designer. It is not used when people can't explain how something works. Evolution, on the other hand, tends to be a atheistic belief. Meaning, evolution, according to atheists, can explain the world around us without the intervention of a designer. In other words, it's left up to chance. That's basically where the question should be: should chance and intelligent design be taught side-by-side in the classrom? Side: Yes, let students hear both.
1
point
I would expect my child to be taught aspects of both, especially since evolution is an opinion, not based on fact. Therefore it's only right to have them both. ESPECIALLY when one of the most absurd things I've ever heard come out of a teacher's mouth is the theory that we formed from some primordial soup that was struck by lightning. Side: Yes, let students hear both.
-2
points
1
point
Think about it, the time they devote to teaching children things that aren't fact they're taking away from the time they could be teaching them relevant things such as math or science (not evolution, but chemistry, biology, and human A+P). First, evolution IS science. And if just because its not 100% fact that shouldn't mean we don't teach students about theories; namely of gravity, cells, atomic structures, relativity, and even the GERM THEORY OF DISEASE that in fact we do teach. Scientific theory is credible and has to meet a lot of requirements... If we weren't teaching kids about theories (as those listed above) in the classroom, we would have a bunch of scientifically illiterate people, and rightly so religious people, (as religion answers complex questions with non-sequitor and simplistic answers), that have clouded perceptions of what reality is, how it works, and how it came about; ultimately favoring the creationist belief. Side: No, creationism has no place.
|
They should NOT be taught side-by-side in science class. Creationism is RELIGION and not SCIENCE. Intelligent design should be taught under "Religious Studies" (aka Comparative Religions). The class(es) should teach the history & philosophies of many popular religions throughout the world today and in the past. Evolution should be taught under "Science". Side: No, creationism has no place.
Creationism and intelligent design are not synonymous. I'm not sure whether you're aware of that, but your post seems to treat them as such. Intelligent design, which is what this discussion is about, doesn't necessarily concern religion. It is also admittedly not scientific, but neither is evolutionary theory by some accounts. Side: Yes, let students hear both.
creationism and intelligent design might have subtle differences but they are the same in one way (the way that makes them religion rather than science), they are concerned not with how, so much as they are concerned with imposing the idea of who. They also impose this notion of who without any supporting evidence. Treating creationism and intelligent design as the same is warranted because of this fact. Evolutionary theory is solidly scientific. Please give me a good reason why you or anyone things that it is not so that i can destroy that argument for its obvious flaws (I might seem over confident but that is because I know that it is scientific) To understand the merits of my point of view I am a philosopher and have learned about the philosophy of science, also-(my father is a biologist [35 years as a fisheries biologist], my aunt is a biologist [~30 years as a research professor and biomimicry specialist], my grandfather a biologist [~40 years as a doctor, professor, pioneer of electron microscopy and other advanced biological disciplines] - each contributing to the advancement and application of evolutionary science and biology generally [part of why i am so passionate about this issue]) Side: No, creationism has no place.
1
point
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory which means it is based on all of the evidence that has been build up over the past ~100 years. All the evidence supports evolutionary theory - The theory has been refined over the years. part of the reason why they call theories theories in science is because in the middle ages they used to call them laws but they realized that the 'law' was slightly insufficient insofar as specific cases were considered. Theories are slightly mutable because they are trying to find a better understanding - to call evolution 'just a theory' is to misunderstand what is meant by 'theory' in the scientific sense. Also, evolution is a fact, it is unquestionably understood that things evolve and that evolution is responsible for the diversity and forms of life. the theory is the best understanding of how this fact occurs. it is like knowing that a plant grows but then trying to come up with an understanding of why growth happens in a plant and how the organs in the plant achieve this by working together. Fact and theory. Side: No, creationism has no place.
So just because something falls under the category of 'religion,' it therefore cannot be science? Since when are the two mutually exclusive? A religion is genreally defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, origin, and purpose of the universe. Thus, evolution should also be considered religion. Side: Yes, let students hear both.
So just because something falls under the category of 'religion,' it therefore cannot be science? Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Although I do agree that in the grand scheme of things, science and religion don't really need to be oppositional, naturalistic science does have rules that make it impossible to apply the scientific method to certain religious claims. Specifically, anything unfalsifiable or supernatural cannot be scientifically proved or disproved. God falls into both categories, so science can't really say anything definite about God, or use him as a legitimate possibility in the hypothesis process. And since naturalistic science is the model taught in public schools, creationism is an inappropriate subject for a science class. A religion is genreally defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, origin, and purpose of the universe. Thus, evolution should also be considered religion. Evolution is a theory meant to investigate the diversity of life on Earth. It says absolutely nothing else about universal causes, origins and purposes. Side: No, creationism has no place.
Assuming we are talking about a science classroom, the answer is no. A basic requirement for something to be taught in a science class is that it has undergone all available scientific rigors, and creationism has not done that. However I do think creationism would be an excellent topic for a contemporary social issues or social studies class, perhaps even a comparative religion class. We cannot let beliefs circumvent the scientific method by appealing to voters. Side: No, creationism has no place.
5
points
Teaching children an idea that we know is untrue (i.e. creationism, Intelligent Design, Flat Earth Theory, etc.) is tantamount to an abuse of young people. Creationism is founded on the principles of supernatural events and no evidence exists to support it. NONE. Side: No, creationism has no place.
I agree that it is abuse, I think that the national debate over this is so problematic, people dont want to listen to reason, and this is what will likely result in the decline of american biological sciences and the economic sectors that fundamentally rely on it. It is criminal to impose ones delusions on innocent unknowning children before they have a chance to know what science is. There are teaching programs specifically designed to confused and delude children so they are not able to understand the issue. These people should be arrested. Science needs to be about evidence - how is this not understood? it is soo simple a truth about science and a point about the issue Side: No, creationism has no place.
1
point
Ok i feel what you're trying to say, but saying that we are all descendants of fish is really just as silly as saying a higher power created us. Show me how much evidence exists to make me believe in evolution. I feel that we should teach hard, solid facts in school and keep philosophical bullshit in debates such as this or in your own mind. neither point can be proven, which meant to me that the original question "where did we come from?" is completely unimportant. A question with no answer makes no sense to me. Side: Don't teach either
5
points
The "evidence" you requested, sir: 1. London's "peppered moth". 2. Genetics, such as: pseudogenes, protein synthesis, endogenous retrovirus' and DNA sequencing. 3. Fossil records, discovered by radiocarbon carbon dating and other methods, which insinuate the "evolution" of humanity from a common ancestor to pongids and other contemporary living primates. Religion and science can go hand in hand, but the fact of the matter is that humans evolved from a common ancestor to the living primates. Whether "God" had a hand in this, I suppose we will all have to wait and see. Side: No, creationism has no place.
Creationism is a belief and therefore has no place in a classroom (except perhaps for a debate, an Anthropology course or other culture oriented class). If an individual wishes to believe that creationism goes hand in hand with evolution then that individual is free to believe that. However, a teacher is responsible for teaching facts, not beliefs. Creationism should definitely be taught, but not in tandem with evolution, so as to compel the student to believe that creationism brought about evolution. They should be taught as separate concepts to human existence. Side: No, creationism has no place.
3
points
2
points
teach about creationism and evolution but not side by side. in science class teach about evolution as our current accepted theory(or truth idk. i believe in evolution but am not 100% sure if its fact or theory). teach creationism in socials as part of teaching about many world religions. don't teach creationism as a truth. Side: No, creationism has no place.
You are right in thinking that creationism can be tought in social studies or something like that. However, you should know that evolution is a fact, there is the fact of evolution and there is the theory of evolution. the fact is that things evolve, we see it all around us all the time (one of the best examples if with bacteria, and viruses). The fact of evolution is unquestioned by biologists. The theory is about - how - evolution occurs, evolutionary theory has come a long way from darwin insofar as the specifics and the development of genetics (darwin was ~100 years before the discovery of genetics and the structure of our DNA). Although it has come a long way and describes a fact, it will always be called a theory - this is because theory means the best evidence based knowledge we have about - how - evolution happens as a process rather than a fact. Even if we were to come to a unified theory of evolutionary biology and realized that we fully understood evolution in all its complexity and there are no more questions that need to be asked, we would still call it a theory. Science got out of the convention of calling things laws ever since what had been known as laws were shown to be only partially valid (such as newtonian physics which was later defined as only valid at slow relativistic speeds). Side: Yes, let students hear both.
2
points
The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes. A 1999 United States poll found that most people favor teaching evolution -- and teaching it as science -- and that when creationism is taught, most prefer that it be taught either in nonscience classes or as a religious belief . Side: No, creationism has no place.
2
points
"Hey kids! Today we'll be learning about evolution and intelligent design. One is a scientific theory, backed with substantial evidence and examined by some of the most enlightened minds of our century, the other is a superstitious explanation that finds shaky support in the documented ramblings of fanatic 2000-year-dead desert nomads that your ignoramus parents are forcing me to regard and teach as a scientific theory. So pull out your textbooks and turn to Genesis" Yeah... thanks, but no thanks. Side: No, creationism has no place.
1
point
School should be a place to encourage logical thinking and reasoning; neither of which Creationism abides by. We have churches to tell people short and sweet answers that satisfy their questions so that they won't often question them (prime example creationism), and we have schools to enforce critical thinking skills, as well as teach theories with overwhelming scientific evidence (prime example evolution). Keep the fairy tales for the churches; only the far more conclusive and logical theories should pass the test to be taught in school. Side: No, creationism has no place.
1
point
0
points
Let me first say that I disagree with the statement that creationism has no place. That being said, I think neither one should be taught. Realistically, how does it matter whether or not we evolved from lesser beings? It is a pointless field of study that does nothing to improve the human condition. Side: Don't teach either
This simply isn't true, evolution is incredibly applicable to the medical field and to ecology. According to many scientists evolution is the backbone of biology. Teaching biology without teaching evolution is like teaching geology without teaching plate tectonics. I don't think we should neglect such an invaluable field of science simply because it conflicts with particular religious views. If we avoid controversial subjects we are doing a great disservice to our progeny. Side: No, creationism has no place.
1
point
This simply isn't true, evolution is incredibly applicable to the medical field and to ecology. According to many scientists evolution is the backbone of biology. There are also many well respected scientists who said that the electric lighbulb had no future. Can you give me a few facts that support the importance of evolution? Side: No, creationism has no place.
3
points
thats like saying how does it matter if neutrinos go faster than light. its about scientific curiosity and learning about our world. Also learning about evolution helps us learn about our species and other species which can help with medicine. its complicated but look it up. they teach us evolution because it is our accepted truth. like our atomic theories or gravitational theories. Side: Yes, let students hear both.
0
points
I'm not so sure about that, given the high involvement of evolution in practical application of transhumanist ideals transhumanist ideals are in a sense, a religion of their own. Intellectualism does nothing to improve the human condition? It certainly does. My point was that with all the arguments going around about what should be taught, why should it even be taught at all? There are certainly other avenues of intellectualism that can be used to further critical thinking in students. Side: No, creationism has no place.
|
