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?

[PaperLuigi]

Mutations are harmful, not helpful.

Mutations are sometimes extremely beneficial. It's what allows certain species to survive. Mutations lead to survival, which (in turn) leads to evolution.

I wanna hear from the guy who doesn't believe in evolution but isn't religious.

[Koopaslaya]

Of course evolution should be taught. Of course the holes in the theory ought to be explained. Of course Intelligent Design is just a glorified name for Creationism.

Teach the facts. Show the evidence. Explain what science can tell us. That's the job of science, right?

I'm not sure that the debate is a proper topic for the science classroom, but the idea of Intelligent Design needs to be addressed because it's gaining wild popularity. I think the the idea of Intelligent Design, especially in this modern context, needs to be explained to students so that they are better equipped to handle the debate. Perhaps this is in the better interest of speech or English classes, however, since the overall telos of a since class is to present scientific face to learn the hows of the world.

[dc804]

I believe evolution should be taught in public schools. Religion should not be influenced on other kids in public schools. That is all I have to say.

[Turtlekid1]

I'm assuming you meant to say "imposed" there.  Either that or you were making an ironic statment. 

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?

Good thing God created us with that ability. :P

[The Chef]

So you were saying everything is predetermined.

I get it now. Turtlekid just can't comprehend science. -_-

[Turtlekid1]

RAH EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE

[Chupperson Weird]

That doesn't change the fact that you blatantly disregard and/or cannot understand what the rest of us have been saying.

[Glorb]

If I stress this anymore, I think I'll end up spontaneously combusting:

EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY, OR A MINDSET, OR ANYTHING. It is a COMPLETELY INTEGRAL PART OF HOW NATURE WORKS. Things make babies. All the time. Sometimes, things make babies with an extra flipper, or a funny-shaped arm. Sometimes those babies die because they're unfit to live in the environment. Sometimes those babies live, since that extra flipper or fin or ear or hairy back allows them to evade predators or brave the cold or swim better, because of SHEER LUCK. And those babies that live longer turn into adults and mate, SOMETIMES passing that rait down. Eventually, with LOTS OF LUCK, the "old" members of the species die out in THAT PARTICULAR AREA. This is fact. And because humans got lucky and have the ability to take care of ailing or disabled humans, chances are we will not be evolving any time soon.

[ShadowBrain]

I said it should be regarded as fact because, well, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favor--and it just makes sense. Of course, nothing is certain, and who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm confident enough that I didn't choose the last option.

[Turtlekid1]

Evidence?  Has someone found a transitional form or a complete geologic column?

OKAY.  This is going to be my last word on the subject, for I grow weary of trying to make a point that none of you apparently want to understand.

I think I'll start with a hypothetical assumption, as irrelevant as it may be.  Let's assume that there is no God.  Just suppose God, Buddha, Allah, or any other form of deity does not exist.  Now let's assume that despite (quite literally) astronomical odds, a big explosion happened in space for no apparent reason.  Even slimmer is the chance that this explosion would form one planet or star.  Slimmer still are the odds that this explosion would form (again, literally) countless planets and stars.  Imagine how small of a chance this is.  You got an imaginable number in your head?  Then obviously you're doing it wrong, because no human mind could imagine those odds.  But I'm not done yet.  Imagine, if you will, the ever-slimmer odds that one of these planets is exactly the right distance away from a star to have a climate not only within tolerance range of life, but within optimum range.  Now, let's suppose that through STILL SMALLER chances, the atmosphere of this planet is also one that just happens to be a perfect combination of gases and elements needed to sustain life.  Okay.  NOW, suppose that with all these extremely unlikely accidents happening, that life beings on earth.  The question of how this can happen, considering that pesky Law of Biogenesis, is one to be answered another time; this is all hypothetical.  Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that this happens too, against all odds, which, if they were inconceivable before, are even more so now.  Let's imagine that over millions of years, this life has gone through some mutations, each with a one-in-several million-chance of happening, let alone being passed on to future generations.  Let's also suppose that all the other animals without these mutations die out.  Warp several million more years into the future, and you have planet Earth, A.D. 2009.  The global situation is grim, to say the least.  There are religious nuts everywhere fighting and debating to the death that theirs is the only true religion.  Conflict and wars abound.  Moral issues and debates plague this era more than any other.  Lawmakers squabble about such matters as the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, the environment, and many, many others. 

I fail to see how any of it matters.  We were the result of an accident.  No God exists; there is no higher purpose.  We might as well just do whatever the heck we want, because if we're accidents, what right does anyone have to determine morality or the greater good?  The only right is what we decide for ourselves.  Down with government and laws!

With me so far?  Let's take the other hypothetical route.

Let's assume that there is, in fact, a God.  Let's assume that this God, for reasons known only to him, decides to create an entire universe.  He places (quite literally) countless stars and planets in the sky.  He makes at least one planet capable of supporting life, not only within tolerance range, but within optimum range.  He places, on at least one planet, life of every sort, containing genes of every sort, allowing for near-limitless variety in species.  Suppose then that he then creates a substantially different creature from the rest.  He loves this creature deeply.  How deeply?  No human mind could imagine the depth.  He creates this creature and tells him to take dominion over the planet he's on.  Tells him to be a good steward.  Naturally, being the all-knowing God he is, he also creates a wife for the man, so they too can reproduce and fill the earth.  Warp several thousand years into the future.  It's A.D. 2009.  The global situation is grim, to say the least.  There are false religions everywhere, constantly quarreling with other religions and your own faith, fighting over which is the true religion.  Conflict and wars abound.  Moral issues and debates plague this era more than any other.  Lawmakers squabble about such matters as the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, the environment, and many, many others.

God has commanded us to obey his laws, and that's what we need to do.


Obviously, this touches on more than evolution.  I may well have missed something, so if anything seems incomplete, I apologize.

BOTTOM LINE:

Evolution = Accident, no morality, nothing awaiting us but oblivion.
Creationism = Providence, absolute law, eternal life for the soul.

[PaperLuigi]

That doesn't change the fact that you blatantly disregard and/or cannot understand what the rest of us have been saying.

Evolution doesn't disprove God. It doesn't shatter the foundation of morals and/or society. It simple explains something that occurs naturally in biological beings.

[CrossEyed7]

Is it that he can't understand your points, or is it that you can't understand his reasons for disagreeing with your points?

[The Chef]

Both.

[PaperLuigi]

[Glorb]

Let's say a god does exist, and he/she/it really did create all life as we know it. That doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen. The way I see it, the existance of a higher power is irrelevant in this discussion. So is morality. Believing in evolution doesn't make you a creationist or an atheist or an agnostic or anything. It means you understand how life works.

Look at it this way. Logically speaking, if you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't believe in genes, or the passing down thereof. If people who don't believe in evolution actually realized what they weren't believing and followed it to its logical conclusion, then they would also not believe that they inherited geen eyes from their parents. Of course, everybody knows you pass traits to your kids, because that's a visible thing. But the two are one in the same. If you refuse to believe in evolution, you might as well just say people grow out of the ground, or get delivered to their parents via stork.

Evolution happens. Deal with it.

[ShadowBrain]

Guys, we might as well stop. There's no getting through the thick shell that is Turtlekid's sheltered Christian upbringing.

[CrossEyed7]

Logically speaking, if you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't believe in genes, or the passing down thereof.

A scientist could easily argue that rejecting evolution means denying the existence of sex; a theologian could easily argue that rejecting 6-day creation means denying the existence of morality.

Guys, we might as well stop. There's no getting through the thick shell that is Turtlekid's sheltered Christian upbringing.

If he outnumbered you 20 to 1, he could condescendingly dismiss your arguments by just remarking that there's no getting through your government brainwashing, if he wanted to.

Both.

So because you think he might not understand what you're saying and you know you don't understand what he's saying, he's the stupid one? Why? Because your ideas are inherently superior to his, or at least to your admittedly limited understanding of what his ideas are?

Plenty of mutations are helpful. Would you like to be unable to breathe oxygen?

This sounds suspiciously like circular reasoning to me. He believes evolution isn't true because mutations aren't helpful, and your response is to point to something that is a helpful mutation if evolution is true?

- The vibe I've gotten from the topic so far is that the only real evidence for evolution is the overall logical consistency of the idea and some incidents today, but there's no tangible evidence of historical evolution. If I'm wrong, can someone point me in the right direction (without implying I'm an idiot)?
- How many people who are mad at Turtlekid for not paying attention actually read all the stuff he posted?
- PL, if you don't mind my saying so, I think you could be a bit more gracious. The others are doing a pretty good job of beating Turtlekid up on their own, but there's a shortage of people arguing nicely with him.
- Anyone want to respond to my post from the beginning? Is it being ignored because it's too good or because it's too dumb? I'll take self-esteem wherever I can find it, so I'll assume the former for now.

[Chupperson Weird]

Why does the creationism argument always end up in defense of things like "morality"? What does that really have to do with it at all? Of course, I've already discussed elsewhere my disbelief in an absolute morality. But honestly, if you want to avoid circular reasoning, I wouldn't being up the articles Turtlekid linked. They are written in a manner that preaches to the choir, not in a manner that seeks to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
Also for the record, I have no beef with your first post. I don't think it's a particularly "good" post, though. Also for the record, I'm not really an evolution proponent, but I'm also not a predetermination kind of guy. I know how things like viruses work. Mutation is how the common cold stays around. Our immune systems have to keep writing new information in order to keep up with those mutations.
Lastly, I believe in God, and I am also sure of the existence of aliens. Whether either one of them directly had to do with the current state of human DNA is unknown to me, and I don't really even care. Why do we have to be worried with where we came from, instead of where we're going, which is really much more important unless you don't believe in the sanctity of life?

[PaperLuigi]

PL, if you don't mind my saying so, I think you could be a bit more gracious. The others are doing a pretty good job of beating Turtlekid up on their own, but there's a shortage of people arguing nicely with him.

If I came off as being rude, I apologize.

[Luigison]

Shortly after this thread was posted I typed a long reply explaining my understanding of evolution and believe in God, but now that I've seen where this thread has gone I'm glad I didn't post it.  Instead I suggest that everyone watch all of the following video.  I think it gives credit to both "sides" of this so called debate. 

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Judgment+Day+Intelligent+Design+on+Trial#

If you found the video interesting support its "creation" by purchasing it: 
http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Day-Intelligent-Design-Trial/dp/B000YY6VIC

I also suggest reading "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution": 
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501

[Toad]

I think that if it were taught in schools, then the scene from Super Mario Bros: the movie where Koopa explains what he evolved from, would be perfect for describing evolution.

[TEM]

Super Mario Bros: the movie

[ShadowBrain]

If he outnumbered you 20 to 1, he could condescendingly dismiss your arguments by just remarking that there's no getting through your government brainwashing, if he wanted to.

I thought the government was trying to brainwash us into believing in God. Or am I misinterpreting this?

[PaperLuigi]

I don't think the government is brainwashing us to believe in God. If anything, many states are doing a good job of honoring the separation of church and state. Others, like Kansas, not so much.

Like I said, believing in God doesn't have to conflict with "believing" in evolution. I personally find both realms beautiful in their own way.

[nensondubois]

I think that evolution, no forget it... the brainwashing argument has already been proven to ridiculous.