Evolution in school and whatnot

[PaperLuigi]

So...I'm gonna be the devil's advocate and say that evolution should be regarded as a fact. I don't think intelligent design should be taught in school because we can't test it scientifically. That doesn't mean I don't believe in God...I just don't think intelligent design/creationism should be taught in school.

[The Chef]

If Turtlekid were to post in this topic, he'll just say that evolution can't be tested scientifically either.

Either way, the concept of an "intellegent designer" is still built on the foundation of religion, and since public schools are put here by the government, that means that it shouldn't be taught due to separation of church and state.

[PaperLuigi]

I agree. Like I said, my main problem with intelligent design is that you can't test it scientifically. You can't just go outside and say "God made that tree because it contains [insert scientific word here]." It's okay to believe that, but it has no place in the science lab.

Also, I don't think it's right to assume Turtlekid would say something when he hasn't even posted in this topic yet.

[CrossEyed7]

The problem is that the main support for evolution seems to be "if a wizard didn't do it, it had to be like this," and science by definition assumes a wizard didn't do it, and then the assumption tends to be forgotten. It can't deal with the possibility that a wizard did do it, but that doesn't mean that's impossible. It's not religion; serious ID proponents never advocate for any specific god or gods, only the possibility that some intelligent entity, the possibility of which science doesn't currently consider, had something to do with this. Many IDers believe in evolution, but think that it had to be set up intentionally.

Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent atheist of our time, has said that he thinks there's a very real possibility that life on Earth was engineered by aliens, who themselves came about naturally (or from other aliens who came about naturally, etc.). ID basically takes that idea a step further -- we were engineered by someone who never came about at all, or who's from an alternative plane of reality we haven't studied yet, or something. ID isn't a theory, it's a different way of looking at things, an alternative starting point from which theories can come. ID considers the possibility that there are one or more intelligent beings who designed the universe and are not part of the universe. It's probably not science, at least by current definitions (although there are ideas in metaphysics that resemble it), but it's saying that if science is going to have the role it has in public life today, the ultimate absolute reality-determinator, then it's irresponsible for it not to consider all possibilities of truth. It either needs to broaden its view or scoot over and let other fields of study, including philosophy, discover truth too.

Honestly, I'm not sure if that really represents what IDists believe, but it's the way I see it (don't worry, I already know I'm wrong). You guys can just substitute "CE7's crazy ideas" for "ID" if it makes you feel better. And incidentally, I'm not very happy with the idea of the federal government running schools at all, but that's (mostly) a debate for another day.

[Turtlekid1]

Also, I don't think it's right to assume Turtlekid would say something when he hasn't even posted in this topic yet.

Actually, The Chef discussed this in #tmk recently.  He's got me pegged pretty well.

I'll reiterate for the benefit (or offense) of those who don't frequen #tmk.

There is no more ironclad evidence for evolution than there is for creationism.  They are both unprovable currently.  You can believe what you want, but both are faith-based.

Also, regarding the poll, there was an option you left out.  I think children should be taught what both sides of the issue say.  Neither should be regarded as fact; neither should be advocated by the government more than the other.

Also, I agree with that last statment CE7 made.

[NintendoExpert89]

I don't think it necessarily has to be black and white. I heard that the Vatican accepts evolution as fact. As mentioned in South Park, evolution could be "the answer to how and not the answer to why." I believe that the two views could co-exist without any dangerous consequences.

But from an academic standpoint, intelligent design is a very religious (and unscientific) subject, and schools are focused on what is concrete to our current understanding of the universe. Evolution has been proven by my knowings (although how it works is still theory), and so it ought to be taught. And given the number of religions today (all with different ideas on the start of mankind) I don't believe explicitly pushing the Christian view of ID (if that is the one in discussion) on students is needed. However, I do recall my textbook in middle school briefly mentioning man's early ideas of the planet (Hindu for example), before moving on to the scientific bulk of the subject about the planet. I'm not exactly sure. A passing reference to intelligent design is ok in regards to learning about man's understanding of the planet, but making the idea a solid part of the curriculum as cold, hard fact isn't necessary.

[PaperLuigi]

Also, regarding the poll, there was an option you left out.  I think children should be taught what both sides of the issue say.  Neither should be regarded as fact; neither should be advocated by the government more than the other.

Um...perhaps in a political class, but not in biology.

[Turtlekid1]

In any class.

[PaperLuigi]

Any class? Like...in home economics, we should teach children evolution or creationism? I'm not sure I understand.

Based on what we've got, there's a LOT of evidence for evolution. The fact of the matter is, this doesn't disprove God at all...it simply proves humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor and that (in nature) adept creatures will survive. Evolution should be taught as a fact in biology class.

For the record, I do consider myself religious, and I do believe in God. However, it would be foolish of me to say evolution never happened in the past because it's happening today. Just take a look at harmful bacteria. We pump ourselves full of drugs to eradicate them, but the bacteria come back stronger than ever in future strains. This is because they evolve to adept to their surroundings. Evolution happens very quickly for bacteria because one bacterium can become 500,000 bacteria in 6-7 hours. The more generations you have, the more quickly evolution occurs.

Please keep in mind that I did not, I repeat, did not say we came from chimps. I said that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, which basically means one group (humans) evolved and the other (chimps) did not.

[The Chef]

Yeah, humans and chimps are both in the ape category but not one and the same. When you get right down to it, all animals on Earth started at the same source.

That said, I mentioned the same thing you did to Turtlekid and he said that's not evolution, it's natural selection. I then said to him that evolution is based on natural selection.

[Turtlekid1]

What I mean by natural selection is this:

Take PL's example again.  With the bacteria.

The bacteria are, indeed, becoming more resistant with each new generation.  This isn't because they evolve the resistance.  The resistance was always there, in the genes of certain bacteria.  When the resistant bacteria begin to be the only kind that survive (when we discover a new medicine/drug/whatever), they're obviously the only kind that are going to reproduce.  We see stronger strains because the weaker ones have died out, not because they've evolved. 

In other words, the fittest survived.

[PaperLuigi]

That's all well and dandy, but you failed to mention where the stronger bacteria got that resistance. Their genes mutated/evolved, which allowed them to survive.

[Turtlekid1]

Their genes were created that way.  Mutations are harmful, not helpful.

[Glorb]

What always, without fail, makes me angry in any topic regarding evolution is that people just think that evolution = species get better over time until they turn into Dr. Manhatten. That's obvious a ridiculous idea, and so you get people saying evolution is a lie, since they don't know what evolution IS.

For example, I do not believe humans evolved from chimps/apes/whatever. I believe that both are offshoots from a common ancestor that got seperated geologically; over a very long period of time, mutations from inbreeding or whatever produced different traits. And those traits became dominant due to those possessing the traits surviving and making more babies with that trait. This is fact; this is how breeding works, regardless of species.

So, just to prevent me from bursting a blood vessel, please try to refrain from using phrases like "X species evolved X feature". Say, like, "X species adapted X feature" instead. It's more accurate.

[Chupperson Weird]

Turtlekid is confusing me here. Yes, their genes were created with the ability to adapt, but they were most certainly not created with predetermined knowledge of what they were going to have to adapt against and mutate into. Plenty of mutations are helpful. Would you like to be unable to breathe oxygen?