The Evolution Revolution
 

Story Here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028.../science_usa_dc


Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Or perhaps in Evolution?

And what do you think your kids should be taught in school? One specific notion, or several? Are you opposed to mentioning evolution? Or creationism?

Inquiring minds really want to know.

I myself believe in the theory of evolution.

However. I believe that in science classes, one should teach science. Not religion. Evolution, however, is not a proven fact, it is a theory, and ought to be presented as such. That being said, high school students are advanced enough to be able to engage in debate on such topics, given that ground rules are set.

As a funny aside: An open letter

Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Or perhaps in Evolution? I believe in Evolution.

And what do you think your kids should be taught in school? No kids here...but when I was in school all theories were tabled for discussion and I am no worse for the wear.

One specific notion, or several? Unsure if you mean...do I believe in one specific notion or several, or should schools teach one notion or several. I'll say I follow the Big Bang/Evolution theory and my answer stands as is above.

Are you opposed to mentioning evolution? No! Or creationism? I'll mention that I don't believe in it!

Inquiring minds really want to know.


Interesting thread osuche! Can't wait to read all the replies.

This seems to be a serious topic regarding the real world. Since I have no directive as to what answer will be acceptable here, I have no opinion to state.

I believe in evolution, and I believe that it is a theory. A scientitic theory, with all of the discussion and arguments that entails.
It bothers me that "intellegent design" is being tauted as science.
This worries me.

I personally believe in a combination of the two.

That we don't know truly how we happened but that there are people who are working on proving their hypothesis. I believe they should be taught about natural selection.

Several main hypothesis should be discussed. This is a great opportunity for critical thinking and helping students to form their own ideas into beliefs.

Evolution should be mentioned, as it is a belief of many in the scientific/education community.

Creationism should be mentioned, as it is a belief of many in the student's communities.

I think that it is critical to offer students a variety of views regarding many topics. It's not the topics, it's how the participants in the discussions respond and formulate ideas that makes or breaks the lesson. There are ways to conduct these types of discussions/lessons that do not cause alienation or a lack of respect for either view/vantage point.

Well, since so-called "Intelligent design" is nothing more than crapola christain dogma dressed up in fancy clothes, no, I don't. I'm not a christain.



Define "believe in". Do you mean, is this good science, backed up y observations and hard evidence? If so, then "belief" is irrelevant



We're talking about teaching science. Not religious dogma, whatever the excuse it is. If you wish to teach "intelligent design", the teach the "theory" of the origin of the universe as explained by the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In a comparative religions course, not in a science course.



You can't avoid mentioning evolution. And for those who say it's "only" a theory, WAKE THE FUCK UP YOU MORONIC SHITHEADS! Evolution, as scientific phenomenon, is an OBSERVED FACT. Speciation events have been witnessed by humans, and the continued denial and willful ignorance of this is shit that should be shoved back up the asses of religious fundamentalists where it belongs.

The pumpkin in top of your head seems *much* too big to completely lack thought....on this topic, or any other. :)


As for me, I do believe in Evolution. I've read Darwin's, and several other scientists', research on this topic. The logic is sound and I do believe in the science behind evolution.

However, I also respect others' religious beliefs and if that requires mitigating discussion of evolution with a caveat regarding "this is a scientific theory" I am OK with that. I do not believe, however, that much bandwidth should be spent on creationism. Mention that it exists and allow the students to get that education at home, or from other classes.

I would, however, advocate a comparative religions class in school. COMPARATIVE religions -- taught as a social science -- might bring alot of understanding about others' beliefs (including Creationism) to the young. When I took such a class in college, it was one of the most thought provoking topics I've ever studied.

As for Intelligent Design....I don't yet se emuch science in the theory. I will suspend disbelief until I know more, or the theory emerges more fully.

Still interested in others' thoughts....

I agree with Lilith. Personal beliefs aside (and yes, I believe in both), there are ways to present all theories whether it be in comparative religion classes, sociology or science. All of these theories, beliefs, scientific fact have a place in student learning as they have a place in our society in one form or another.

Now days they offer a variety of classes even in high school that provide students with an opportunity to explore a wide selection of faiths. Often the classes are set up in a compare/contrast type model. I know the one my son is taking currently also explores those faiths through the historical writings of followers. Their summer reading was The Adventures of Ibn Battuta : A Muslim Traveller of the 14th Century Typically they are counted as either a Science or History course in order to allow the students who would most be interested in the class to receive proper credit. There is no Social Science in highschool.





I understand people having strong feelings about their beliefs however encourage dialogue and understanding not further the divide. People who feel contrary to the views emotively expressed may be insulted and proceed to shut you out instead of listening to your views. Becareful that you do not become that which you despise. Closemindedness can be a two way street. It is possible to state your views without slamming the views of others.

Do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Are we the product of direct and minute engineering by a vast and powerful extra-universal force who dictated the force and direction of absolutely every sub-atomic particle in the universe? I suspect not, because if it were so, my own independence and self-will becomes void and my ego will not allow that.


Or perhaps in Evolution?

Creation theories of all faiths, theist and animist, are a small window towards gaining understanding of people who come from other cultures.


And what do you think your kids should be taught in school? One specific notion, or several?

Show them the lot so they have some basis for comparison.

Are you opposed to mentioning evolution?

Evolution is a fascinating theory which probably explains much of modern diversity, but most of what is perceived as (and was interpreted by Darwin as being) evolution is not evolution but genetic drift within defined populations. True evolution is claimed to be when a gene sequence buggers up in division, and the organism benefits. Most evolution is either survival neutral or downright bad for it. Yes, they can mention it.


Or creationism?

See above.


The core of the whole question seems to be this "Intelligent Designer" thing. A need to intrude to this level seems a very un-omnipotent thing to do. My God just set a few rules at the beginning and let creation roll. Anyone who still believes in the "physical form of man in God's image" also demeans the absolute majesty of the deity. It is the mind of man which we are told to strive to be more like God.

(Puts up special Oldfart umbrella and waits for rocks to fall.)

I believe in both and believe both should be discussed with children

Science is information about what IS, philosophy is what you DO with it.

Shadows of forgotten ancestors / 1992 Carl Sagan and Ann Deuyan
ISBN 0-394-53481-6

The power of myth / 1988 Joseph Campbell, with Bill Moyers
ISBN 0-385-24773-7


I do not take a course in Aircraft Mechanics with hopes of learning Fine Cake Decorating.

osuche,

Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Or perhaps in Evolution? I prefer the descriptive abilities of the theory first published by Charles Darwin in The Origin Of Species. I do so primarily because a pre-existing belief is not needed for it to function effectively.


And what do you think your kids should be taught in school? That mutation/variation together with natural selection is the most widely accepted theory that explains evolution.


One specific notion, or several? In any scientific domain, there is usually only one principle paradigm. All others should be referred to as alternatives, and the reasons why they are not the principle should be reviewed.


Are you opposed to mentioning evolution? Or creationism? Not at all. However, creationism, as it is not falsifiable, is by definition unscientific. It should not be presented as such.

So the beings of Alpha Centari who munipulated the atoms on Earth to create life is not a form of Intelligent Design? Why leave out this whole area that has not been disproven.

^^^ SC :thumb:

and don’t forget the universe could really be riding on the back of a turtle. ;)

:thumb: Glad to hear it Lilith! I have regrets now for not taking the course osuche mentions. My only concern to introducing it in high school is that some people might not be ready to absorb the information (I certainly wasn't).

The course my son is taking required that you have signed forms by previous teachers stating that you were capable of managing that sort of material.

Funny! Most organized religions require a life pledge by the age of 13 or 14. Wonder why that would be? :confused:

The theory of the Earth riding on the turtle's back was disproven when Apollo 18 missed the Moon and lodged in the Celestial crystal hemisphere. Shortly before they were eaten by Hermes horses they sent back several photos which proved conclusively that it was indeed a tortoise, not a turtle we are balanced on.

Such arrant mythconceptions are the bane of all true seekers of knowledge.

Apollo 18

mythconceptions




Now THAT'S intelligent design! :grin:

Don't go there PF.

I believe in intelligent design and that it should be taught just as much as evolution should be.

yes master
sorry master :o









I knew I should waite for the directive from on high. :bang:

Oh, I'm sorry...were you NOT intending to offend everyone that follows a religion of faith? So sorry. I didn't mean to misinterpret. I'm kind of simple...been that way since 13.

Down boys! :spank:

I hoped we could keep this civil, and I was really curious about everyone's answers. Different strokes for different folks.....but we must all, as a country, come to a conclusion about what we want to teach our young ones in public school. I'm sure several other countries battle the same issues.

It's by discussing these kind of ideological conflicts that we move our thinking forward. Or at least I hope. :)

How can one have a discussion with someone (on either side of an arguement like this) that refuses to acknowledge your opinion? Or worse, dismisses the reason behind your having that opinion as the byproduct of an inability to grasp the concepts that might disprove it?

WildIrish

You put your finger on one of the principle difficulties about this subject. Thank you.

On occassion, one of the participants will adopt a position to the effect “I disagree with what you say, but rather than engage you in debate, I will deny your legitimacy to debate the subject.”

This technique is a most regrettable position for anyone to adopt, and one which must be worked around for any useful resolution to what are often important issues.

That’s CORRECT! You DID misinterpret! I was NOT intending to offend everyone that follows a religion of faith. I was responding to someone that also considered the possibility of people having additional thought and opinions after puberty.

I’m not going to contribute to redirecting the intent of this thread. I have learned the lesson I was taught there. You state your opinion and I’ll get to read it. See. I’m still learning how things work. :)

I'm reacting, dude...not lashing out. You throw a line like that out and expect nobody to be offended? Then you play the victim when they are?

I quoted your original post because there's no way to misconstrue it's meaning. You're stating that religion indoctrinates it's followers while they are young because anyone "intelligent and able to absorb information" wouldn't follow.

As to my opinion, I'm a believer of evolution with a twist. I don't know how life began, but something beyond my comprehension occurred, and I think that from that...there's been a series of changes throughout existence that's led us to where we are today. What that initial something was...don't know. Could've been scientific or it could've been an act of divine intervention. Point is there's people that believe either, or, both or neither.

I think that for the chapter on "How life began...", concepts should be taught as such. Concepts. Start out the discussion with "Today we will be discussing the most common theories surrounding the beginning of life. We will not be attempting to decide which one is correct by discrediting the rest, but merely discussing the differences between the principals of each." Is that wrong?

osuche, i think this is a fascinating topic, hence the following treatise :p

imo, world religion classes should be offered in high school with at least three credits required for graduation. it should be taught in the most factual way it can be. even…especially… the major modern religions should be taught with the same adherence to strict fact. there should never be any judgement attached…ever; any information we have or have surmised should be taught with the ultimate goal of enlightenment in intellectual, historic and world cultural capacities. the same goes for science.

should creationism be taught in a science class? no. should intelligent design? yes… however small the difference twixt the two.

creationism needs to be kept with religions. it is defined, basically, as the book of genesis and, to my mind, only applies when discussing christanity..

intelligent design is a budding idea, and ,yes, scientific in nature, which hypothesizes that someone/thing/things have manipulated—in some way, at some time—our journey from the primordial ooze to space. whether they be gods, aliens or our own future selves is a missing piece that some supply according to their own faith base and, i believe, has sparked the controversy that unnecessarily clouds this hypothesis. but it is undeniable that many scientists have wondered, for millennia they have wondered, at the essential coincidence of it all and are seeking to explain it. as many scientists will tell you they believe: there is no such thing as coincidence.

and if you think i implied that the whole of science is lumped in with faith-based belief systems in that previous paragraph, you’re right. i am neither a scientist nor a religionist but i look at it this way: all individual beliefs are centered on information that, for them at least, is considered to be true but in reality has always eluded true comprehension. for those who believe in a higher power worthy of their worship and love, their data is books, songs, and fables. their hypotheses are laws, practices and rituals. their theory is faith. for those who cannot give their faith or love to an intangible god, their scripture is also much that cannot be proved beyond doubt or even understood completely. their commandments are that which they can see, touch or measure. their rituals are to record it all for future generations—much as religions have a guide book, so does science.

to be a scientist requires faith in the natural order of things; there are always surprises yet they do not give up.

to be one of the faithful requires an on-going examination of the most complicated things known to man—the mind, or at least the part of it we refer to as sentience or self awareness…the soul.

furthermore, for all that history has taught us regarding the censure, ridicule and even execution of our free-thinking ancestors (many of whom were later proved to be exactly right or at least on the right track), we certainly haven’t altered our approach to accommodate the evidence. perhaps that is why this issue is such a dilemma…as a whole, we are not a very scientifically minded society; we are so much more geared toward emotion and gut—so hard to remain scientifically curious and open, and still stay deeply rooted by the important traditions and the (mostly)universal and totally essential morality that keeps us from devolving into cave men with the capacity for nuclear war.
what has been done in the name of science and what has been done in the name of religion do not differ much. whether it was the doctors of nazi medicine and their demented experiments or the insane horror of the rwandan massacre; the invention of something as simple as plastic which has improved countless lives, or as simple as a woman like mother theresa who cared for even more.

do not lower a man for his beliefs, do lower a belief for its men.

now that i’m feeling maudlin…on a personal level, i have not ruled out anything. nor have i prepared for anything—i do not own a foil hat or a ray gun. although i could make the hat, the ray gun is completely beyond my capabilities. nor do i go to any church. although i do invoke the lord’s name quite often…especially during sex so perhaps i’m covered in that regard after all. if it is our future selves i must worry about, then i shall have to rent timecop again but i’m pretty sure the good guys won.

Yes...that's exactly what I meant. :D

As for the foil hats, Aqua's making them for all of us.

too samll...i could use two for my nipples i suppose. :D


i have an edit to my other post: along with the numeropus typos that are obvious there is one that sends the wrong message. i typed do lower a belief for its men but i left out the not... i reapeat...do not! :D
probably obvious but i had to clarify.

Wow! That's pretty profound. I like that, Wyndhy.

For myself, I accept evolution as a logical path for creation to have followed,
but, by no means does that exclude intelligent design.

Most of modern thought is based on the "intelligent" application of what has
been learned from the past. I see no reason why a "Supreme Being" could
not have used the same technique for "evolving" life. (Besides, it'd give
his "kids" something to argue about.)

And, if what one really means by "mankind" is the life form that has a soul ...
then life prior to man could very easily have physical similarities but not be
man. So the transformation would be when that "soul" was introduced.

Voila. Evolution ... with creation.

Anyway, that's my thought.

Oh, yeah, and on the question of being taught in school. I like Wyndhy's suggestion for a course on religious concepts presenting the fundamental concepts that provide a basis for the worlds major religions. I think that's a good concept and could help kids to understand how others have chosen to view life.

That was seriously rude and uncalled for gg.

If you believe me to be a 'moronic shithead' you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do not make inflammatory statements as such as they do nothing more than piss people off.

I hadn't read gekkogecko's comment, but now that I have, I agree, it was terribly rude and uncalled for.

I think a quote from a scientist of some repute is in order: "After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge." Albert Einstein

I'm sorry, I though that publics schools had become a baby sitting institution and had very little to do with education.
Today they are manstreaming Learning disabled children and the teacher can only teach to the slowest learning child in the class and every thing that is taught has to be plain vanilla. JMHO

you had to quote my typo. :mad: :spank:
;) thanks db, :x:

It depends if it is a science class or a religion class. There is no concrete evidence for ID. ... it should not be discussed in a science class.

Unless I am mistaken, what to teach, is still decided state by state.