<p>Why can’t the Theory of Evolution be taught in school as The Way Things Are? Is any part of it proven and factual or is the whole thing one big myth perpetuated by the liberal elite? What, exactly, is the Theory of Evolution?</p>
<p>I ask because just a few days ago at our school a student complained in class that a teacher was teaching the above-named theory as a fact. So far as I know, nothing has come of it, but it did bring those questions to my mind.</p>
<p>What do you guys think?</p>
<p>(In case you can’t tell, I come down on the side of It’s the Way Things Are, but I really don’t have anything to support this other than the general consensus I can see in the scientific community. Somebody give me some facts!)</p>
<p>However, the fact that it is labeled “theory” doesn’t make it any less convincing. The “theory” of gravity, for example, is rarely disputed. The evidence for evolution is similarly convincing. </p>
<p>What I particularly dislike is when people attempt to force upon me the idea that ID (intelligent design) is somehow an equally convicing argument. We had a nice discussion about this one another message board, concluding with the fact that ID is not at all a theory, rather an independent, unprovable assumption that is consisent with all facts and theories.</p>
<p>IT is really scary that science is being thrown to the side by some people. They don’t know what a scientic theory is and if it doesn’t match religous lessons, then they ignore it. I am assuming that is what the student was suggesting.</p>
<p>And, as far as intelligent design goes, I find that to be a Christian based belief. It disregards stories of native americans, buddhists, etc. All Intelligent Design does is “answer” questions for which science hasn’t yet discovered the answers. By calling it Intelligent Design, we are supposed to be fooled into thinking there is some facts and research behind it. The words chosen are deliberately decieving.</p>
<p>Years ago, people thought that the devil made you sick. Then, lo and behold, germs were discovered. People KNEW we were the center of the universe, then science discovered we weren’t. Don’t get me started on the world being flat…</p>
<p>The posters so far have been right on the mark. Very good posts.</p>
<p>National Geographic ran a magazine a while back with a cover entitled “Was Darwin Wrong?”</p>
<p>The first page of the article, and I mean the entire first page, was the following phrase:</p>
<p>“No.”</p>
<p>That’s over simplifying - Darwin’s fundamentals were right, and it only took a few tweaks to figure out the Way of Things™.</p>
<p>Evolution as a theory has given rise to nearly every modern scientific advance in fields even peripherally related to biology.</p>
<p>Whatever your religious beliefs, natural selection and survival of the fittest on large and small scales give rise to a profound understanding of humanity and life as we know it, providing not only keys to its future but details of its past.</p>
<p>As previously mentioned, not believing in evolution is about as logical as not believing in Gravity. Now, I’ll stop short of calling it fact - science seeks to explain things and sometimes falls on its face. But as an honest-to-God Christian I can tell you that anybody who doesn’t “believe” in evolution is a fool.</p>
<p>SL, I agree. As a Christian I have many friends who are creationists even some short chronology creationists, but all of them believe in Natural Selection. They seek weak points in the scientific support for Evolution as the sole explanation for species, but any alternative theory, they acknowledge, must include Natural Selection.</p>
<p>There is no necessary contradiction between (non-doctrinal) creationism and Darwin’s theories. One does not need to self-identify as a 'soulless secularist" to be in perfect agreement with Darwin. </p>
<p>Check out the Hubble Deep Space View, and broaden perspective from this little no-name planet on an insignificant arm of an relatively unimpressive galaxy to the entire unfathomable universe. Evolution can indeed be viewed as “part of the plan.” (The size and complexity of that plan, if it exists, would overwhelm Bill Gate’s pitiful Microsoft Project product - we need a bigger computer, for which we will have to wait until May 2 [Hitchhiker’s Guide released!]).</p>
<p>An aside: If you want to entertain yourself, try asking a physicist “Why is there gravity?”, and/or “By what mechanism or process does gravity work?”,</p>
<p>Then see how long it takes for everyone’s eyes to glaze over as he/she attempts to “explain” it.</p>
<p>Part of the problem in discussion is that the word “theory” has a more precise meaning in scientific usage than in colloquial. In the latter, “theory” often means not much more than “guess off the top of my head, supported by one or two datapoints that more or less fit.” </p>
<p>In the scientific sense, “theory” means “consistent with rigorous analysis and observation.” If a theory doesn’t hold up to observation, it must be either junked or modified. An example of the first would be the Aristotelian theory of the sun revolving around the earth; that one was junked. An example of the second, loosely, would be Newtonian physics being supplanted by Einsteinian physics…the Newtonian still works for most things and most of us in the everyday world can get by with its precepts just fine but the Newtonian framework starts breaking down when you start examining phenomena involving velocities at a significant fraction of the speed of light, the interplay of gravity/time/mass-energy/etc. No contradiction, the Einsteinian view is a more complete elaboration.</p>
<p>Mony, it’s a fallacy to suggest that the lack of the ability to explain something indicates the absence of a rational scientific explanation.</p>
<p>I personally see no conflict between faith and science. But while I see transgressions on both sides of the argument, I see far far far more by the know-nothing adherents of “creation science” [sic sic sic] than I do the other way around. There’s often a painful consistency in that those ignorant of science are also ignorant of the history…dare I say evolution of…Christianity as well.</p>
<p>Here’s a compromise: God caused the Big Bang. After all, science has absolutely no explanation why the Big Bang had to happen.</p>
<p>Hehe, I’d love to see a mudfight competition between the Kansas people who don’t want evolution taught in the schools and the charter members of the Academic Performance Cult on this board. I wonder which side would win. :)</p>
<p>“Mony, it’s a fallacy to suggest that the lack of the ability to explain something indicates the absence of a rational scientific explanation”.</p>
<p>Was this directed at me? Because I don’t disagree; I was just mentioning as an aside that the theory of Gravitation has been up to now rather impenetrable to me. Somehow “Exchange of Gravitons” just doesn’t do it for me. Stuff like this forced me out of Physics, which I actually majored in. I started out wanting to understand how the physical universe works, and at the end I didn’t even understand things that I thought I knew when I started.</p>
<p>I would still support the teaching the theory of Gravity in the public schools, even without mentioning the competing theory of “things just falling down randomly” that is becoming so popular these days. :)</p>
<p>These are about the responses I expected. Given the relation between users of CC and education (or at least high test scores), does this mean that there is a corresponding link between believing in evolution and education?</p>
<p>birdofprey, level of education probably DOES correlate with believing in evolution, but whether or not there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two things is up for debate. </p>
<p>I work in a public school. A couple weeks back, two 5th grade boys were arguning about whether we “come from monkeys” or “come from God.” I was just about to go over to them and say that people have differing opinions, and they needed to respect each other, when a teacher’s aide came up and said, “God made all of us.” </p>
<p>I went to Catholic high school, but working at a public school I have heard more God-related B.S. from the teachers than I ever heard in high school. </p>
<p>Sorry, that was just a rant about the public school system.</p>
<p>Just an alternate idea: Given the tone of the comments in some of the above posts, any believers in Creationism or ID are probably showing intelligence by staying OUT of the discussion. :-)</p>
<p>I have a good friend, with a PhD in physics from MIT (really). His statement on evolution (he’s also a fundamentalist Christian) is:</p>
<p>“I think God put all this evidence for evolution here to test my faith. I believe the Bible is correct. After all, an omnipotent God could have created you, me, and everything else–including half-decayed uranium–ten minutes ago, and we couldn’t tell the difference, could we?”</p>
<p>In the face of illogical arguments for God, God becomes a matter of faith, and science can not argue against faith. I disagree with my friend–but I think his argument is valid–for him.</p>
<p>HOWEVER: I think all scientific theories and the data supporting them should be taught in school. I think it is crucial that adults understand the differences between faith and science, and how each is developed in today’s society. (I’m also n favor of teaching comparative religions in the public schools, without endoresement of any one religion.)</p>
<p>dmd77 - did you se Dogma? The scene where God (Alanis Morrisette) went “poof!” and fixed the whole bloody carnage in an instant? </p>
<p>Hindu scriptures and lore are full of tales about the great yogis creating worlds and universes. How long do you think I’d have to sit without moving to manifest a few hundred thousand for college costs?</p>
<p>Onotologically, I’m cool with “intelligent ID” - just don’t press my hot button (Grand Canyon on the 6th day, or was it the 5th?)</p>