Theories over where we came from draw some of the strongest responses; everyone thinks they're right, but no one can really prove it. Did we evolve from chimps, were we placed here by some omnipotent presence, or did the Flying Spaghetti Monster put us here with his noodly appendage in the hopes of seeing us turn into pirates? The validity of teaching Evolution in schools is still hotly debated, and while there are facts that back up Evolution, others will claim that other facts exist that would prove their claim to creation equally valid.
Was Darwin right or wrong? Is there a reason to teach Evolution in schools while leaving out the various forms of Creationism? Which one do you personally think is right?
Thank you!
Thank you!
Patrick Smith (12:00)
27 comments:
I am a Christian and believe in God. The thing is I dont fully believe in creation or evolution. I believe that God created animals that evoled into people. They say that humans evoled from chimps. I believe that God created and started everything off in Africa millions of years ago. He created chimps first but as he saw they wasnt forefeeling his vision he made them to evolve into humans. Starting off with blacks first then everyone one else evolved from that. Truely some people still resemble their evolvolutional mother the chimp. This is why I believe that God started evolution.
To be honest, I really do not know much about either of the two. I think since it is unknown how we came into existance, it should be left exactly like that, unknown.
I am a Christian and I believe that God created us. Even though we may have same features as some animals, it does not mean that we were evolved from an animal. I believe that schools should have just a class on it. If children want to take the class then fine. I would never take it. I believe what I believe and that is in God.
Katelyn Watterson 9:00
I am a Christian and believe strongly in God. But to say that we evolved from chimps is kind of crazy. God created all of us and all of creation and he did this for a reason. That reason was to show that we all have a perpose in this world. I do not think that either one of them is right really but that is just my opinion.
Rachel Rudder
I personally think that teaching evolution is perfectly valid because it is a scientific theory with a lot of supporting evidence. I think much of Darwin's theory was right and there is evidence that is impossible to ignore, with other areas of science, like genetics, anatomy, arcahaelogy, etc. further supporting many of his claims. I think Creationism should be mentioned as an alternate theory, but it shouldn't be studied in depth because there isn't much supporting evidence for it. Evolution is studied in science class, and Creationism does not fit under science. I think evolution makes a lot more sense and is more logical, but if someone wants to learn more about Creationism, they can slways take a theology class.
I strongly believe that we and the rest of the world and everything in it were created by God. I also was brought up very strict Protestant. I would never think to believe that we come from apes or monkeys because there is no way in hell that a cell of an ape can be anything like a cell of a human. There is nothing still evolving today so why would it happen in the past wouldnt we still be evolving into something else then, the cycle has to keep going. What are we going to turn into next half animal half human? I mean come on! I think evolution was made up on a whim because he didnt believe in God and wanted more of an explanation for how the world was created. I believe that in the school system they shouldnt just teach evolution they should also teach theology and creation adn the students should be able to pick which one they want to learn about.
ELizabeth Moore (0900)
....HILLARY FEARS.... I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE ALL SENT THROUGH GOD..I BELEIEVE THAT TEACHING ABOUT DARWIN IN SCHOOLIS RIDICULOUS. I DO BELIEVE IN BIOLOGY CLASS; THAT SOME FORM OF EVOLUTION DOES SERVE A PURPOSE FOR TEACHING. WE ARE SOME WHAT MADE UP LIKE THE ANIMALS CHIMPS AND COULD HAVE SOME HOW EVOLVED OUR MOLD FROM SUCH. IN ALL I BELIEVE IN MY SAVIOR,AND BELIEVE THAT HE CREATED WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE ARE.
One thing I've noticed is that most people don't actually disbelieve in evolution. Especially the ones who claim that they do. Most people who claim to disbelieve in evolution are not actually able to disbelieve in evolution because they don't understand what evolution is. It's like me disbelieving in the Bible because I think it's wrong to pour acid in people's eyes, as Jesus specifically advocated in his sermon on the mount. Never mind that I've never read or heard of the Bible; I'm going to disbelieve in it, by golly. (A quick glance through the above responses seems to vindicate this point of view, but it's also symptomatic about politicians, etc. who publicly denounce the idea.) So, it would seem, evolution has a place in schools if for no other reason than to educate those who seem determined to disbelieve in it so that they can disbelieve in it.
Which brings us to why evolution should be taught in schools. It is a science, which is another thing that doesn't mean what most people think it means. (Science is another thing that should be taught in schools, but it never is, no matter what people tell you.) The thing about science is that it's okay to be wrong. Science is a constant work in progress where we gradually refine our knowledge through experiment (and failed experiments can often tell us as much as successful ones) and observation. What makes evolution worth teaching isn't that it's right or wrong; that's something no two scientists will completely agree on. It isn't important that you believe evolution. What's important is that you learn what it has to say, what conclusions the theory makes, and how it arrived at those conclusions.
Because, say what you want about disbelieving it, the theory works, which, in the end, is the only real defense that can be given to any science. Microevolution has been observed, and the conclusions drawn from the theory of evolution have given insight into applicable fields, insight which would not have otherwise been available. It is an incontestable fact that we know more about the world around us because of the theory of evolution, and for that reason it should be taught. Even now evolution might be wrong, and any scientist who is being completely honest with himself will agree. However, if it is, it is the useful sort of wrong. Newton's laws of motion were found to be wrong; however, to this day they are taught in schools, and rightly so. Which is to say, they may be wrong in some absolute sense, but they are still useful, and in the end that's what matters.
This is a debate that rages strong today, but in many ways it asks the wrong questions. The point isn't evolution; most people don't understand evolution, even many of the people who believe in it. The point is science, which most people also understand. Science isn't something you believe or disbelieve in, it is a process used to know things, and the best one we have yet come up with, the evidence being that it works. In light of this, there is no reason to keep evolution out of schools except those based off of willful ignorance.
I am Russian Orthodox, but I mostly practice Islam, having lived in a Muslim country for quite some time. I have had a lifelong interest in theology and have done a good deal of independent studying into most of the major world religions. My spiritual opinions are complex, well beyond the scope of these questions, and it would be difficult to say that I believe in God in the typical sense of the world. (It can, perhaps, be said that I am religious, but not spiritual.)
I don't believe that God and evolutionary biology - or any branch of science - are mutually exclusive. I do not understand how Christians can reject science. Science is a way of studying the cycles and the laws that govern the universe, the structures that God set down with His own hand. How can a Christian look at scientific and mathematical discoveries and not feel that he is getting closer to God, and seeing His works with better, more lucid eyes? I believe that science can be a beautiful meditation, the study of God's will in the world.
In evolutionary biology I see the elegance and subtlety of God's hand in changing His creatures into what better fits His vision. He raises the temperature of an island in the South Pacific by five degrees for one thousand summers, and a new variety of bird develops.
Evolution, based on the knowledge that we have so far, is really undeniable. Outside of the scientific community, people misinterpret the word "theory" and confuse it with "hypothesis", but the underlying principles of evolution can be and have been proven. That species gradually change and adapt over time is a fact. Instead of rejecting this, Christians should embrace it, and feel grateful that they live in this blessed time when mankind is no longer ignorant of that fact, and can see and understand more of the sacred acts of God in a way that the people of the past could not.
What in this new knowledge is not a heavenly gift?
So, this being the accepted scientific principle, there's no reason not to teach it in schools. Creationism isn't necessary to teach alongside the generally accepted facts (first of all, whose version are you going to choose? Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian?), because religious instruction is well beyond the scope of any science class. I wouldn't mind seeing classes on theology (maybe worked into literature, social studies, or history classes) as long as they attempt to gave equal time to the beliefs of most major religions.
"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
- Carl Sagan
The biggest problem most people seem to have is that evolution is some sort of belief. It's not. It is, at a basic level, survival of the fittest. Mutations occur when cells divide and the animals with the helpful mutations will "out-perform" the others and past that trait on. That is the theory of evolution, NOT that humans came from monkeys. That could be a conclusion drawn from the theory, but it is not the theory itself.
Nothing more I could possibly add because I would just be repeating Ruslan's great comment.
-Mem
I was raised Christian and I'm an Atheist now and I've always believed that creationism should not be taught in schools. You just *can't* teach something like fact when there isn't a shred of proof for it. We actually know that evolution is real so it's silly to teach otherwise.
And besides, with so many different religions among the students at the schools it seems incredibly offensive to teach that one type of creationism is true... unless you teach every religion's creationism story and that's just pointless.
Oh, and I don't believe evolution says we are evolved from chimps, it says that we and chimps share common ancestors, right? We just evolved off of that ancestor differently.
By the way, I've always been a fan of the Flying Spaghetti monster. RAmen!
As a Christian, I am opposed to the mandated teaching of intelligent design in science courses. ID has no place in science; this is not to state that it is wrong, but rather to state that it cannot be examined from a scientific perspective. One cannot prove or disprove ID. One cannot perform experiments to determine the nature of ID. One cannot extrapolate from ID to learn more about the nature of our world--or even of God, for that matter (ID merely states that there *is* a god, and that it created the universe; it tells us nothing of this god's nature).
Evolution, on the other hand, *is* a scientific theory. Many people wrongly associate the theory with atheism, claiming that evolution is a theory about how the world came to be without God. Evolution makes no such claims. It merely describes how organisms adapt to their environments throughout the generations. The process of micro-evolution is, in fact, an observable phenomenon in which organisms slowly change to better fit their environments--see, for instance, how diseases may evolve to become drug-resistant, or how insects in farmlands can evolve resistance to pesticides. Evolution is a useful scientific theory, and so it should be taught in schools. See Joe's post above mine for more on my views, as he apparently thinks the same way I do about this.
Since the link is long and annoying, go to www.fark.com/geek and do a find on 'evolution.' It should be the second one, or the one with the livescience icon. It has a graph showing several countries and, on average, where their populations stand on whether or not Evolution is true. The US is next to last.
Island is at the top of the list. Croatta is well above the US.
Good to know where we stand as a nation in the rest of the world.
www3.uakron.edu/biology/evolution/html/
misconceptions.htm (add this last line to the previous)
Scientist do not say we evolve from apes, chimpanzees, or monkeys. To say this would be retarded and to claim that this is what evolution says displays complete ignorance of what the theory even is. I mean seriously, think! If Evolutionist were out to pull the wool over our eyes, and the premise of the idea is that species change over time, why would they say that we split off from apes/chimpanzees/monkeys and yet somehow those groups stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years? Wouldn't it make much more sense to say that we shared a common ancestor with them, that was not ape/chimpanzee/monkey? Why, it would seem so, and that is what the theory says.
So any time you want to pull out the ape/chimpanzee/monkey argument, at least *try* by saying that "it is ridiculous to say that we share a common ancestor with apes/chimpanzees/monkeys" and you will look 100(x+1) more intelligent.
I love how people claim that Evolution is some sort of Atheist movement to dethrone God and that people only believe in it because of the bandwagon effect. Do these people not know history at all? People *hated* Darwin's theory, scientist *hated* Darwin's theory. And guess what? Most of those scientist were not atheist! I know, it's a shock!
So if Darwin managed to convince a crowd of people who did not want to accept the theory of it's validity, I think that passes the trial of the bandwagon since it was no where near popular when it was first introduced.
Also, he did not just magically come up with Evolution. He *saw* it. We can continue to see it today because of Darwin's finches.
Let's face it: both claims have holes with the size of a galaxy! Okay, maybe just the size of an average crater in the moon...
The evolution have the 'lost links', and you need a lot of imagination to make a full image of something from 1/9th of a jaw. He he, I remember the time when I read when the archeologists mistake a finger bone with a horn bone from a dinosaur and the whole body structure changed drastically.
The creation have the big problem of what is a myth, allegory or the guy who wrote it simply couldn't understand what he saw/heard in his vision/talk/inspiration. It could be perfectly accurate in many parts but guessing what is like playing a new game resembling chess but with new pieces, blindfolded and with only a clue of rules.
In other words, I don't want then to teach evolution as a fact, but instead as a more viable theory than the previous ones; the Creation is, in fact (if you are not atheist), accurate. HOW He did it it's not my problem.
Evolution should be taught in school, if only as the prevailing theory in biology. Creationism should not, save the school that meets only on Sundays.
This is largely because creationism is not science, and as such has no place in a science classroom.
Evolution makes testable predictions; there will be links between related species, if a trait makes it easier to survive, said trait will start representing a larger portion of the population, and so on.
Creationism does not. It only claims that evolution is wrong, and that God does stuff. One of these claims is testable, and the other is not (as the existence of God is a matter of faith). Thus, one cannot prove or disprove all of their claims.
Something that cannot be tested has no place in science; it is a matter of faith, and thus should not be taught by science professors.
I admit that I'm somewhat iffy on the extension of the undebatable evolutionary process to the genesis of life (I too am Christian), but I recognize that it is nothing more than the extension of an existing, well-supported theory to give a working model of the past, and the relics that we find of it.
We may never find full evidence that the past stages of life happened as we think, but the basic process of evolution is not up for debate. It has been observed, and verified, many times in the century and a half since Darwin took his trip on the Beagle.
It is one of the foundations of modern medicine, and is particularly illuminating for our understanding of viruses, a set of threats that grow ever more relevant.
Further, even the less easily-tested evolutionary history model has substantial evidence to support it. We have bodies similar enough to other animals that we can even use pig valves in our own hearts. We have found the remains of many species that seem to be intermediate stages between dinosaurs and birds, humans, apes, and an ancient ancestor, and reptilian ancestors and mammals.
tl,dr version: Creationism isn't science, and should not be taught in science classrooms. The evolutionary process is nigh unquestionably correct, near enough to a physical law, while even the evolutionary model of history has substantial evidence to support it.
I personally believe both stories of evolution. I believe and see the points that Darwin made and I do believe the story i grew up on from the bible. So it is quite hard to pick one story to choose from when they both make very good points.
I believe that schools should teach a little bit about both stories of evolution to show the students the similarities and differences.
Michelle Carr
12:00
Evolution is science. It's a set of theories on the effect of various processes, each one verified and proved true by observation and experimentation. When a new element is discovered that contradicts a part of evolution theories, the theories are revised and amended.
Creationism is religion. It's a simple idea born of nothing more than the emotional need to see something divine behind existence, that there is a reason, a driving plan, which explains all and gives meaning to the universe. Rather than, you know, simple randomness. When something is found which contradicts creationism dogma, it's dismissed out of hand as a lie or simply a decoy created by the Lord to test the faith of mankind.
Evolution has no problem with creationism. Evolution simply explains how processes work. People are free to imagine a "why" behind that, science is about the "how".
But creationism has a problem with evolution. If it seems like it's a natural process, then there is no supernatural behind, there is no god.
So it is very important for creationists to counter evolution. Add to this how many people are confused and unaware of what evolution really is (no, Eric Andrews, they DO NOT say that humans evolved from chimps, they do say that humans and chimps evolved both from a common ancestor, the "human descending from monkey" bit is like saying your cousin is your grandfather), and you get the situation existing in the United States right now: one the one hand, actual scientists. On the other hand, raving loons (creationists) masquerading irrational beliefs as rational science (intelligent design) because they want to undermine the credibility of the scientific method. In the middle, clueless and uninformed people who are confused by the debate because they've been led to believe both "opinions" are equal.
How, and Eric, that little bit about "starting off with Blacks first and then everyone else evolved from that"? How delightful, truly. Blacks aren't "less evolved" than any other h. sapiens sapiens. Did you know there is only one human race? It's true. We're all sap-sap. There had been other human races in the past (Neanderthalensis, Florensis, etc.) but they're extinct. You should know that the pseudo-scientific excuses for racism have all been disproven in the past century, shouldn't you?
But this reminds me of another popular misconception. Evolution doesn't mean improvement. Evolution is simply the way species change to adapt to changing conditions of life. A species like the coelacanth has had no discernible evolution for four or five times longer than primates (of which humanity is just one subgroup) existed. Why? Because they did not need to change.
Just because a species is more recent than another doesn't mean it's "better." You could in fact argue the opposite, if the coelacanth has survived until today without needing to change it's because it is already a superiorly-fit species!
Evolution is a slow and gradual process. There is no "steps" in evolution. Bad science fiction novels (which may or may not be good novels, but the science in them is always bad), like A.E. Van Vogt's Slans, has been disastrous in this respect.
Hey, saw your request on GitP and thought I'd throw my two pence in.
I'm a committed Christian, and have been raised as such all my life. I'm also a physicist. Science is what I do, what I enjoy. There is no reason for the two to be exclusive.
I believe in evolution. I believe that humans and apes evolved from the same proto-ape ancestors. I also believe that God set it up so that that's possible.
Regarding which should be taught in schools, I would say both. Not in the same class, however. Teach evolutionism in biology, and creationism in religious studies. Because however much it may or may not have going for it, and even if it is 100% literal truth, creationism is not science. If God made the world in six 24-hour periods, and put animals and humans directly on the earth as it says in the Bible, then fine. He did it. That doesn't make it science. t's an untestable theory with litte if any evidence going for it. It belongs in the religious studies classroom, not the science lab.
Of course, I'm from the UK rather than Bible Belt, US, so there's some difference in attitudes this side of the pond.
I would like to point out that Evolution is a set of principals, and technically has absolutely *nothing* to do with humans. Apparently people are so human-centric that in order for Evolution to be considered 'not flawed' we have to be able to say with 100% accuracy where we came from.
Guess what? They are working with hundreds of millions of years worth of stuff, of *course* there are going to be missing links in *one* species out of the billions that have ever existed. There is ample evidence supporting the theory of evolution, that is, that populations change and adapt over long periods of time.
To say that populations do not change and adapt over time is to be speaking from pure ignorance.
As for 'Creationism' being taught in school - 'Creationism' is no more than a euphemism for 'Christianity,' because so far the only controversy over the issue is whether or not to teach Young Earth Creationism which is based off of the Christian Bible. Religion does not belong in the classroom because the government is *supposed* to be impartial when it comes to religion. It doesn't matter if the majority of the United States is Christian, Christianity is not the state religion. I also don't see Hindus, Muslims, Native-Americans, Taoist, Buddhist, ect. up in arms about teaching *their* Creationism theories.
Also, I love how there is a debate about 'teaching' Creationism. Seriously, in a majority Christian nation, who *doesn't* know the Christian creation story? Seriously, what is there to teach without it being a sermon?
If you are a true Christian, I fail to see why you have to rely upon the school system to teach your faith to your own children. What ever happened to going to church for that? If you want to convert others then get involved with your community, become missionaries, be more active in your church. I guarantee you will do a better job at teaching your faith than a governmental worker.
I think that evolution should be taught in schools because it does exist no matter how you think we ended up here. There u=is a new species of frogs that were discovered that have no lungs and are skin breathers. They evolved and lost their lungs because of the aerated water they live in. The current is too fast and having lungs would make it impossible for them to move. Also we are losing our need for things like our appendix. I don't know how we got here and I don't really care as long as I'm here!
Much of what I have to say about the issue has already been brought up repeatedly, so I will try to make this short:
First, there is no way of collecting evidence for the rightness of Creationism, at least not right now. Perhaps one day, humanity will have the ability to do so - which would be pretty hilarious, since it requires the evolution of the our wonderful species - but now is not this day, unless some divine being descends upon earth. (And even then, it could always be an imposter, of course.)
I am referring to Creationism of a general sort here, since once you commit yourself to a certain religion which makes claims about the origin of the universe, earth and life, it can be tested. The result tends to be unfavorable.
The same is not true for Evolutionism. Surely, it's scientific merit has been disputed, at times even by rather reasonable people like Popper, often for being unable to make real predictions. Yet, the idea as a whole can be observed, and, ever since the modern evolutionary synthesis, explained.
Actually, it happens to be utilized in labs every day, which makes me wonder why we use the term Evolutionism (in place of simply Evolution) at all.
To come to an end, Evolution(-ism) is a scientific theory and observable process, Creation is a religious belief embedded in our cultures.
Both should be seen as what they are and taught accordingly.
* more or less interesting sidenote: I'm sure this doesn't apply to all schools, but from personal experience, evolution is, quite ironically, often taught without paying regard to the evolution of the theory itself. What I was taught, for example, was that Darwin came up with Evolutionism as we know it and some guys found out that DNA plays some role, too. Which is wrong, since Darwin made some mistakes concerning the basic mechanism of evolution.
When I used to ask about how you could reconcile the seven days mentioned in the bible to the theory of evolution, my father asked me in turn; "How long is a day to the one that created everything?"
I have no problems with teaching evolution. I do have problems with teaching religions, even my own, in public schools because I think that the government should have no part in religious teachings.
Evolution should be taught as a theory. We think this is how it happened, but frankly we don't know.
I have been a Christian all my life and I believe that God created everything on earth for a reason. I think Darwin is just putting a theory out there for people to think about. He probably believes in it, but most, if not all Christians don't and never will. I think the FLYING SPEGHETTETTI MONSTER is really neat looking, though!!
Honestly I do not know much about any of the theories, but if I had to choose I would probably say I agree with evolution; because there are scientific facts backing the theory up. For schools I think they should explore all the different ideas for evolution, and not just base it on one.
Kristine D’Urso
Personally I know nothing about evolution and how we all came t about. I never think about that and probably never will. No one will ever know how the world. I think people trying to figure it out might all be made up.
Jennifer Woodward (12:00)
Post a Comment