Evolution in public schools

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

(1) Ok, I'll put it this way. Scientists (evolutionists in other words, as 99%+ of all scientists accept evolution) look at the evidence from the perspective of a naturalistic method. It's assumed that the evidence supports a natural formation of life on earth and it does. The key here is that this perspective can be tested. Certain things must happen for this to be the case and these things can be affirmed or denied by testing. Creationists, on the other hand look at the evidence assuming that supernatural ideas can explain it. As these ideas are untestable, they are assumptions.

 

 

 

(3) Why add the supernatural baggage? I don't get it. People try to reconcile belief with science by adding these baseless assumptions. God must have had a hand in it, right? How can you test that? How does anyone know if god even exists? People speculate all the time and have done for millenia yet no one has actually known, hence why it's a belief requiring faith, right?. Science is about what we can know via observations, hypothesis and testing. If it dosen't fit into this framework, why add it and try and call it science?

 

 

 

What orifice did you pull this number out of?

 

 

 

Here in Texas we don't even bother teaching. The science teacher says "Some people believe in evolution, some in Creation." and we move on to what we actually know.

 

 

 

(1) If you say that Creation should not be taught in schools for the reason that it is not proven, then you are barking up the wrong tree. (2) Evolution has not been proven, ever, in a laboratory setting. (3) Therefore making it not verified by the scientific method. All it has been is speculation from day one. Evolution has never gone the full gamut of the scientific method.

 

 

 

In fact, a large part of the scientific community do not believe in the man from monkey phenomenon. (4) By saying 99% of scientists, you are making the asinine claim that every scientist from cosmetics to dentistry believes in evolution, which is a ridiculous and completely unfounded claim.

 

 

 

(5) Yes, adaptation does occur, but we have never observed a complete species change as a result, only improvement of the original species.

 

 

 

(6) Before you dare say Creationism is a completely bunk theory, then give me intangible proof that interspecies evolution happens. Do it.

 

 

 

(1) Firstly, it's not science. Make it science then you can teach it. If you do, you'll have to make it encompass more data than evolution if it's to be considered over evolution for teaching. That's the way the system works. No fairness, no appeasing one's religious belief, just a weight of evidence and the ability to explain data. That's what get's a scientific theory a place in school curriculum. Also, it's not that creationism is unproven, it's that it contorts known facts or neglects facts to suit it's agenda and is, by it's very nature, unprovable.

 

 

 

(2) Yes, it's impossible to test billions of years of evolution in a laboratory. If you think that's the only way to test something you're sadly mistaken. A test is not just mixing chemicals in test tubes.

 

 

 

(3) Sorry, the method is used and has worked out on evolution. Observe phenomena (genome data), hypothesise (common ancestry), test (look for common genome data). If we don't find what we should, evolution would be a totally unfounded and bunk idea. Evidently, all major observations support evolution. See the molecular biology evidence I presented on page 2.

 

 

 

(4) Sorry, my wording was off. More like 99% of biologists. Those who work in relevant fields. Here we go.

 

 

 

(5) Speciation has been observed. Pre tell, how does a man made definition prevent a natural mutation? If I draw a conceptual line in the sand, will nature keel to my concept and prevent mutations beyond that point? No.

 

 

 

(6) Firstly, it's not even science. Really, it's not. I'll explain later if you doubt that it isn't. As for evidence of evolution, see my post on page 2 and read through the links. Your logic is faulty here too. The credentials of creationism don't rest on the failures of evolution to explain things.

[warri0r45]

double post

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Give me intangible proof of evolution and I will stay out of these debates forever.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

 

 

 

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

[warri0r45]

(3) Why add the supernatural baggage? I don't get it. People try to reconcile belief with science by adding these baseless assumptions. God must have had a hand in it, right? How can you test that? How does anyone know if god even exists? People speculate all the time and have done for millenia yet no one has actually known, hence why it's a belief requiring faith, right?. Science is about what we can know via observations, hypothesis and testing. If it dosen't fit into this framework, why add it and try and call it science?

 

I was simply mentioning god, because I was trying to see if the issue you presented me with could be explained by Creation. I was not trying to convert you.

 

Of course it can never be proved that god exists, however, for the majority of religious people, it does not need to be proved. (1) They simply know he exists. The same can be said of athiests. (2) There has never been any experiment which disproves god, (3) and it takes faith for athiests to believe there is no god. However, I would rather not get into a debate about whether or not there is a god, because if there is, we can't observe him with our human senses.

 

Onto your last sentence, (4) I would call Creationism science, because, even though you technically can't prove that there was a god behind it, the current theories of Creationism do fit with what we know about the world and universe.

 

As a side note, you seem to know what you're talking about with biology (from this thread and others), so (5) I would be interested to see if the scenario I presented you with has any chance of being valid.

 

 

 

 

(1) No, they think they know. There is a crucial difference.

 

 

 

(2) There is no such thing as a test to disprove god; it's an unfalsifiable concept. People don't normally go around disproving anything, that's backwards thinking. We usually back up our claims with proof for them, not proof against others.

 

 

 

(3) Total and utter misrepresentation of atheism. Not all atheists believe that god does not exist. Many, like me, are weak atheists and simply lack belief in the idea that god does exist. It's through an utter lack of faith that I'm at this position as a skeptic, I don't have faith that god does not exist because I do not at all believe that he does not.

 

 

 

a - without, lacking, not

 

theism - the belief in the existance of a god or gods

 

 

 

Thus, atheism - being without, lacking or not having belief in the existance of a god or gods.

 

 

 

Lack of belief for is not positive belief against.

 

 

 

(4) If you exclude god entirely and look at creationism by it's natural faculties, it fails miserably. The neglect of some facts and manipulation of others isn't honest science and leads to a one sided view of the evidence at hand which is at odds with facts already known to be true. It's not an honest science and you can easily see this by it's preoccupation with trying to disprove evolution. If it were at all honest, it would stick to it's own guns. If you like, feel free to show me an unbiased, honest reference which has no occupation with childishly badmouthing evolution.

 

 

 

(5) Firstly, I'd have to completely ignore "creation scientists believe god..."

 

 

 

Aside from that, you say perhaps some animals had information for different hair lengths in thier genome and they used which ever one was needed for the climate. That's not how variation works at all. We know for a fact that microevolution occurs, and that's what gives us the variation within a species. There are generally only ever 2 variations of a trait within any given individual: one from mum, one from dad. Any new traits, then, must be selected for via mutations on old traits. That's how you get variation. We can see brand new information being expressed that wasn't present before via a mutational event. I think this covers what you suggested.

[navyplaya]

I noticed a few people posting some really ignorant things, so I'm just going to say one thing as I don't want to get into a long battle with this.

 

 

 

In the theory of evolution, people did not evolve from "monkeys." Instead, monkeys and people evolved together from older primates, and due to natural selection and location and yada yada, people are people and monkeys are monkeys.

 

 

 

So if you are arguing against evolution by saying that people couldn't have evolved from monkeys, do me a favor. Research the theory of evolution, and as soon as you are done, pull your cord out of your computer.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

I noticed a few people posting some really ignorant things, so I'm just going to say one thing as I don't want to get into a long battle with this.

 

 

 

In the theory of evolution, people did not evolve from "monkeys." Instead, monkeys and people evolved together from older primates, and due to natural selection and location and yada yada, people are people and monkeys are monkeys.

 

 

 

So if you are arguing against evolution by saying that people couldn't have evolved from monkeys, do me a favor. Research the theory of evolution, and as soon as you are done, pull your cord out of your computer.

 

You see, Barihawk? This person is from the real Texas. The reasonable Texas. Not your make-believe cowboy ranchland where it's somehow acceptable for teachers to "move on to what they know" after one sentence about evolution.

[warri0r45]

Just to reiterate the sentiment from another topic, I'll post these lines of evidence for evolution in response to the doubters among us. Feel free to comment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chromosome - Bundles of DNA (bound by special protiens) encompassing one's genome.

 

 

 

Genome - The genetic material of an organism. Every nucleotide which makes up all of your DNA.

 

 

 

Nucleotide - The monomer subuints which make up DNA. There are four. Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), and Cytosine ©.

 

 

 

Telomere - The end terminus of a chromosome. In vertebrates, it is comprised of the repeat sequence 'TTAGGG' which is repeated around 1000 times. Easily recognisable in the genome.

 

 

 

Centromere - The central structure of a chromosome. Comprised of segments of simple repeat DNA 171 nucleotides in length. Easily recognisable in the genome.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Explanation of the video -

 

 

 

1) Humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes all have 48.

 

2) It is then hypothesised that the common ancestor we and the great apes shared had 48 chromosomes, like the other great apes currently do.

 

3) Two primate chromosomes must then have fused into one human chromosome.

 

4) Chromosome 2 fits the bill; it has two centromeres, one deactivated and the other still functional. It also has telomere sequence in it's center, where it dosen't belong (remember telomeres are only found on the terminus ends of chromosomes). These two facts clearly indicate a fusion event occured.

 

5) Human chromosome 2 is also highly similar in sequence to two chimpanzee chromosomes. This clearly indicates common ancestry between us and chimps.

 

 

 

Further reading:

 

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Just one of many examples of clear evidence for common ancestry between us and chimps. We didn't evolve from them. They are evolved creatures just like us. We share a common ancestor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

========================================================================

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

========================================================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

 

 

 

Endogenous Retrovirus - The genome of a now defunct virus permanently inserted into one's genome. This occurs when a retrovirus makes its way into germ line cells (sperm or egg) and recieves a knockout mutation thereafter (to stop it's adverse effects).

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Retroviruses are unique among RNA viruses in their ability to integrate DNA copies of their genomes into the genome of the infected cell. On occasion, integration takes place in a germ-line cell, giving rise to an endogenous retrovirus (ERV), which can be inherited by the offspring of the infected host, and may eventually become fixed in the gene pool of the host population (1). The genomes of vertebrate species contain dozens to thousands of ERV sequences (2), some of which were acquired in evolutionarily recent times, whereas others derive from "ancient" times, as indicated by their identical site of integration in more than one species (1, 3, 4). Typically, ancient proviruses have sustained numerous point mutations, deletions, and insertions, rendering them incapable of expressing virus. No biologically active viruses have been associated with the ancient proviruses.

 

 

 

Despite their abundance in vertebrate genomes, and some other especially useful features described below, ERVs have rarely been exploited as phylogenetic markers (5-10). In a few instances integration site polymorphisms have served as a source of phylogenetic signal (6), or as markers for linkage analysis (11), but the usefulness of orthologous ERV nucleotide sequences has never been fully explored. Here we report the application of ancient human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) sequences to phylogenetic analysis on a time scale spanning recent primate evolution.

 

 

 

HERVs can be organized into at least a dozen distinct groups, which vary in size from one to thousands of members (1, 12). Cross-hybridization and PCR studies consistently reveal that most HERV families are also found in other primates, including apes and Old World monkeys (OWMs) (12-19). Many HERVs, including the ones used in this study, are the result of integration events that took place between 5 and 50 million years ago, as indicated by the distribution of specific proviruses at the same integration sites (or "loci") among related species. The evolution of primates has been the subject of intense study for well over a century, providing a well established phylogenetic consensus with which to compare and evaluate the performance of ERVs as phylogenetic markers.

 

 

 

 

Explanation of the quote -

 

 

 

1) There are many human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) found in the human genome.

 

2) Most of these families of HERVs are found in other primates, at the same site of integration or loci, suggesting all those who share HERVs, including humans, inherited them from our most recent common ancestor.

 

 

 

The mathematical probability of a multitude of HERVs inserting in all primates in thier precise locations and harbouring the same knockout mutations is staggering.

 

 

 

Further reading:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Another line of evidence to corroborate with the aformentioned.

[Defender2516]

I believe intelligent design/creationlism should not be taught in schools, and also evolution as well.

 

 

 

Evolution is only a Theory, not a Fact. Science should not teach theories or things that "might" be, but things that are and proven.

 

 

 

What if evolution is wrong? Then all these years of educating our kids on evolution is flawed and wasted education.

 

 

 

We need to teach those things which are proven and factual, not "we think it works like this".

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Satenza]

I believe intelligent design/creationlism should not be taught in schools, and also evolution as well.

 

 

 

Evolution is only a Theory, not a Fact. Science should not teach theories or things that "might" be, but things that are and proven.

 

 

 

 

All science is theory.

 

 

 

Teach both, in different classes.

[Korskin]

I believe intelligent design/creationlism should not be taught in schools, and also evolution as well.

 

So we should teach nothing about the origin of life instead?

 

Evolution is only a Theory, not a Fact. Science should not teach theories or things that "might" be, but things that are and proven.

 

As Satenza said: "All science is theory." Science doesn't produce unquestionable absolute truths.

 

What if evolution is wrong? Then all these years of educating our kids on evolution is flawed and wasted education.

 

What if Einstein was wrong? That can be said about any scientific theory.

 

 

We need to teach those things which are proven and factual, not "we think it works like this".

 

We should teach about evolution as a theory. However, we shouldn't say that's it's proven when it's not.

[No_OnE]

I believe intelligent design/creationlism should not be taught in schools, and also evolution as well.

 

 

 

Evolution is only a Theory, not a Fact. Science should not teach theories or things that "might" be, but things that are and proven.

 

 

 

What if evolution is wrong? Then all these years of educating our kids on evolution is flawed and wasted education.

 

 

 

We need to teach those things which are proven and factual, not "we think it works like this".

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

All science is theory. They are "proven" based on what we know. Other factors that we don't know of can, one day, come into play and turn every theory we have upside down. For example, it's not possible for us to travel at the speed of light, right? Not necessarily. It's called Einstein's Theory[/] of Relativity for a reason.

 

 

 

Also, to cut out all things that aren't 100% proven would eliminate almost all math and science classes. Even some history classes would be cut.

 

 

 

In my opinion, both theories should taught with the side note that they are, in fact, theories. I have faith in God and I do believe in Heaven and life after death but I don't exactly agree with the creationist theory. I'm a logical thinker and I sort of believe in a mixture of the two. I won't go into detail or anything, though.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

In my opinion, both theories should taught with the side note that they are, in fact, theories.

 

But that's the key problem. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories. Once again, we return to people's ignorance of what the word theory means.

[warri0r45]

I believe intelligent design/creationlism should not be taught in schools, and also evolution as well.

 

 

 

Evolution is only a Theory, not a Fact. Science should not teach theories or things that "might" be, but things that are and proven.

 

 

 

What if evolution is wrong? Then all these years of educating our kids on evolution is flawed and wasted education.

 

 

 

We need to teach those things which are proven and factual, not "we think it works like this".

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

If you didn't teach theory, all they'd have to do is give you a book of irrelevant facts and say "study it." Pretty useless. As people have tried to stress ad nauseum, theory does not imply guess or conjecture. It's a much stronger framework than that based on observation, hypothesis, tests on those hypothesis and support from numerous lines of evidence.

[darkmage099]

Creation stories are taught in school!

 

 

 

1. Language Arts- The Bible, The Qu'ran, The Torah, The Rig Veda, The Popol Vuh, and many other texts are studied. Why? Because it is ancient literature. In fact, today we read the creation story.

 

 

 

2. History- Religion and beliefs are taught in history class because they ARE history. It's essential to understand the views of ancient people.

 

 

 

 

 

It's not taught in science because...it isn't science.

[warri0r45]

Creation stories are taught in school!

 

 

 

1. Language Arts- The Bible, The Qu'ran, The Torah, The Rig Veda, The Popol Vuh, and many other texts are studied. Why? Because it is ancient literature. In fact, today we read the creation story.

 

 

 

2. History- Religion and beliefs are taught in history class because they ARE history. It's essential to understand the views of ancient people.

 

 

 

 

 

It's not taught in science because...it isn't science.

 

 

 

And I don't think anyone has a problem with that. The issue here is of course teaching these creation stories in science classes. It seems peapole are pretty unanimous on avoiding teaching creation stories in science classes though, which is good.

[Tbfgraphx14]

Oh, I finally rememberd my opinion on this, or maybe not exactly this :-k

 

 

 

About religion being taught in school, every school should teach about a religion's history.

 

 

 

As said above.

[No_OnE]

In my opinion, both theories should taught with the side note that they are, in fact, theories.

 

But that's the key problem. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories. Once again, we return to people's ignorance of what the word theory means.

 

Maybe I am ignorant of the definition but is the definition something along the lines of "explanation whose status is still debatable"? Isn't that what these are. The explanation of the beginning of the human race. None of it is proven so it is still debatable. Until an explanation is proven, it's theory. These are explanations. They aren't proven. They're theories.

 

 

 

I will say that I might be missing something and I'll admit that I may be completely wrong, but until you kindly point out that key thing that I'm missing, I will stand by my opinion.

[Rebdragon]

Maybe I am ignorant of the definition but is the definition something along the lines of "explanation whose status is still debatable"? Isn't that what these are. The explanation of the beginning of the human race. None of it is proven so it is still debatable. Until an explanation is proven, it's theory. These are explanations. They aren't proven. They're theories.

 

 

 

I will say that I might be missing something and I'll admit that I may be completely wrong, but until you kindly point out that key thing that I'm missing, I will stand by my opinion.

 

:-s

 

 

 

Read through the thread. I think the answer to your post appears at least four times on every page. Common usage of theory =/= Scientific theory.

 

 

 

I swear, the scientific community needs to think of a new word, or at least the English part (in hopes that other languages are smart enough to make a verbal distinction between the two meanings). Using "theory" just causes pointless problems -.- .

[warri0r45]

In my opinion, both theories should taught with the side note that they are, in fact, theories.

 

But that's the key problem. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories. Once again, we return to people's ignorance of what the word theory means.

 

Maybe I am ignorant of the definition but is the definition something along the lines of "explanation whose status is still debatable"? Isn't that what these are. The explanation of the beginning of the human race. None of it is proven so it is still debatable. Until an explanation is proven, it's theory. These are explanations. They aren't proven. They're theories.

 

 

 

I will say that I might be missing something and I'll admit that I may be completely wrong, but until you kindly point out that key thing that I'm missing, I will stand by my opinion.

 

 

 

How debatable depends on the nature of the theory. The only thing you'll ever hear debated within the theory of evolution are the mechanisms and rate. The fact that it happens is considered just that - fact.

 

 

 

Let me perform an excercise. Below is google search of 'define theory' and highlighted are those definitions best applying to scientific theory.

 

 

 

 

Definitions of theory on the Web:

 

 

 

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

 

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

 

a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"

 

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

 

 

The word theory has a number distinct meanings depending on the context.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

 

 

A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.

 

college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html

 

 

 

a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events

 

education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/

 

 

 

a statement or set of statements used to explain a phenomena. A theory is generally accepted as valid due to having survived repeated testing.

 

http://www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm

 

 

 

A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.

 

http://www.whatislife.com/glossary.htm

 

 

 

A country will export that good which intensively uses the country's abundant (cheap) factor, and import the good which intensively uses its scarce (expensive) factor.

 

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072487488/student_view0/glossary.html

 

 

 

An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses. (Eg, Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, 1916)

 

http://www.nmsr.org/wrkshp9.htm

 

 

 

During the Civil War, the US War Department bought supplies of crackers from a company called Orrins-Kendall. Their initials appeared on the boxes, and as the crackers were of a particularly high standard, the letters OK became synonymous with "all right". This theory was originally put forward in a publication called Linguist, from the Horace Mann School for Boys in New York, although it has subsequently appeared in a number of other publications.

 

http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/okay.htm

 

 

 

The weight a person or an animal maintains and returns to after dieting or overfeeding. Setpoint varies with age and activity levels, and may be raised if the organism is subject to chronic deprivation.

 

http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/bitf/eatgloss.htm

 

 

 

is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

http://www.customresearchpapers.us/swc/ ... edia/t.php

 

 

 

A logical Model of a system, comprising the set of Variables and the set of Constraints. Currently, L2 can have only Propositional Theories.

 

ic.arc.nasa.gov/projects/L2/doc/L2_refman/L2Glossary.html

 

 

 

a step in the scientific method in which a statement is generated on the basis of highly confirmed hypotheses and is used to generalize about conditions not yet tested

 

ary.farahsouth.cgu.edu/diction /

 

 

 

several related propositions that explain some domain of inquiry. Also called a school or paradigm.

 

oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

 

 

 

A research group looking at theoretical computer science.

 

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/UoCCL/local/phd ... ode35.html

 

 

 

A statement or set of statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena. For example, Social Learning Theory describes how human behavior is a product of environmental, social and personal factors.

 

http://www.etr.org/recapp/research/researchglossary.htm

 

 

 

explanation of a problem based upon observations and experiments.

 

http://www.rwater.com/glossary/gloss_mz.htm

 

 

 

approach, which concentrates on the basic conceptual issues and algothims in the design of operating systems. Textbook is mainly text and diagrams with little code.

 

http://www.softpanorama.org/Bookshelf/OS_design.shtml

 

 

 

"a supposition or system of ideas explaining something, especially one based on general principles independent on the particular things to be explained" (Oxford Canadian Dictionary).

 

http://www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agraham/ ... ossary.htm

 

 

 

is the theory of primordial nucleosynthesis put forward by Alpher, Bethe and Gamov in the late 1940's. The theory attempted to explain nuclear abundances by a single process, namely successive neutron capture in the early Universe. The theory broke down due to the lack of stable nuclide with atomic numbers 5 and 8.

 

http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/ ... ssary.html

 

 

 

An organized set of ideas that serves as a framework for interpreting facts and findings and a guide for scientific research.

 

textbooks.brookespublishing.com/losardo/chapter1/keyterms.htm

 

 

 

A general idea that explains a large set of factual patterns.

 

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html

 

 

 

The study of how musical is put together.

 

http://www.classicalandjazz.co.uk/Dictionary/T.htm

 

 

 

Explicit ideas about the nature of phenomena. Theory is an inter-related set of constructs (or variables) formed into propositions (or hypotheses) that specify the relationship among the variables.

 

http://www.prm.nau.edu/prm447/definitions.htm

 

 

 

An essay-review. College English, 56 (1994), 828-840.

 

http://www.members.aol.com/grosspage/Sc ... edia_a.htm

 

 

 

A closely reasoned set of propositions, derived from and supported by established evidence and intended to explain certain phenomenon.

 

iws.ccccd.edu/tsmith/glossary.htm

 

 

 

Key aspects:

 

 

 

Well substantiated and organized.

 

Explains phenomena and facts in a linking manner.

 

Includes tested hypotheses.

 

Repeatedly confirmed by many of these tested hypotheses (if tests contradict the theory, the theory accomodates by changing; this is the accountable nature of science)

 

Well supported by evidence.

 

 

 

If people debate whether a theory is true in scientific circles, it's because it isn't a strong theory. People don't debate whether the theory of evolution is true within scientific circles, they only debate rates and mechanisms of change - the nitty gritty details. It's only people in the public sphere who debate it.

[assassin_696]

I swear, if I hear "but it's just a theory..." one more time...

[darkmage099]

Creation stories are taught in school!

 

 

 

1. Language Arts- The Bible, The Qu'ran, The Torah, The Rig Veda, The Popol Vuh, and many other texts are studied. Why? Because it is ancient literature. In fact, today we read the creation story.

 

 

 

2. History- Religion and beliefs are taught in history class because they ARE history. It's essential to understand the views of ancient people.

 

 

 

 

 

It's not taught in science because...it isn't science.

 

 

 

And I don't think anyone has a problem with that. The issue here is of course teaching these creation stories in science classes. It seems peapole are pretty unanimous on avoiding teaching creation stories in science classes though, which is good.

 

 

 

That is not the point man. The point is this dude is upset about evolution being taught in public schools, but creationism is not. Well, news is that creationism is taught. It is irrelevant where it is taught because every student has to take some science, language arts, and history. Does it really matter in which class...?

[Satenza]

Yes because teaching creation stories in science class is misleading to the student in thinking that it is scientific or at least has some scientific weight. Which considering they are stories, it does not. Creationism isn't science and it will never be. I personally think science class should teach more about what science is, as it seems very few people actually understand that.

[warri0r45]

Yes because teaching creation stories in science class is misleading to the student in thinking that it is scientific or at least has some scientific weight. Which considering they are stories, it does not. Creationism isn't science and it will never be. I personally think science class should teach more about what science is, as it seems very few people actually understand that.

 

 

 

Summed it up perfectly. Kids don't even know what science is anymore. They should teach about scientific thoery, the aspects of it and the scientific method.

[gedboy21122112]

Rofl.

 

 

 

You do know that "adam And eve" Are... NOT PROVEN!!!!! for 1.

 

 

 

And 2 That's religon not science And there 4 even if Eveoltion is a theroy Adam and eve are also. :thumbsup:

[dutycalls5609]

Creationism isn't science though. Science studies natural theories and evolution fits that, whereas Creationism is a supernatural theory. Teach creationism in religion/philosophy class and keep evolution in the science classroom.

 

 

 

The problem is that science is FACT. When a subject such as how we came to be is so highly debated, you can't preach a theory as fact. Now, feel free to put Evolution in theoretical science if you wish, but don't tell me it's the truth.

 

 

 

OT: As mentioned in another post, I literally walked out of my Biology class when the teacher started Evolution. She said, "What are you doing??!!??!?!" And I calmly replied "I refuse to learn the lies of those who refuse to realize that the Bible is truth."

 

 

 

Religious arrogance? Some would say so. But it had to be done. And, she didn't teach Evolution that year! Went straight to Astronomy...in hindsight, I think I'd rather be taught lies...Man that teacher could've bored Ben Stein to death.