Evolution's role in class set to grow

Mickey Mouse wrote:

The primary accomplishment of Evolution has been the destruction of morality and marriage in this country.

So believing in some fairy tale about God creating the world in six days will make my marriage stronger? Make me a more moral person?

Mickey Mouse wrote:

It started when they finally were able to remove the Bible and prayer from the schools in the early 1960s. After the Supreme Court ruling was passed, almost immediately public schools were bombarded by sex and drugs as the sceptre passed from the teacher to ROCK MUSIC. Students stopped listening to their teachers and parents and started listening to the Rolling Stones and the Doors.

It's all Keith Richards and Jim Morrison's fault!!!

THE EVOLUTION-CREATION WARS: WHY TEACHING
MORE SCIENCE JUST IS NOT ENOUGH

http://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/2224/1694

Imagine That wrote:

Which “theory of evolution” are they going to teach? We came from apes, we share a genetic parent with apes, gradual change evolution, sudden change evolution, are just a few. This theory changes every few months as new evidence is found that contradicts it. How are they going to teach something that changes so frequently? Get 100 atheist scientists together and you will have 100 different “theories” of evolution

You assume that they will only teach one.

Michael in Ocoee wrote:

Woops, I mean't to say.....
All we want the evolutionists to admit, is that their side takes just as much FAITH as ours....

Actually it does not. Evolutionary creationism is an attempt to explain and continues to accept evidence even when it is contrary to what the current theory is.

Fundamental creationism however accepts no evidence contrary to its belief (6 days and all was accomplished) and has no room to change.

Notice the word creationism in both paragraphs? Both sides believe in creation and there is ample room to include God in evolution. Many Christians believe that evolution is the, or one of the tools that God used in creating all.

Injeun wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolution is a load of irrelevant nonsense. Kids need math, history, english and so forth. The other things they need are morals and good examples. Your'e more likely to find this in our nations founding and very christian ideals than in speculating whether or not a canary is a pteradactyl.

Where would all the good Beer and Pool Tables go without science? It is just like you to take all the fun out of life.

RPW wrote:

With respect to both sides of this debate: None of the arguments I've read here (which, admittedly is only a subset of those posted) addresses the core issue in my mind: Scientists should decide what gets taught in a science classroom.
Not the public at large ...
Not politicians ...
Not even parents ...
To the more religious contributors of this thread: I respect your beliefs, but please consider that an educational topic is not best developed by public committee, but by the experts in that topic. So help educate your child by providing them the context you think is best (e.g., your religious beliefs); however, leave the curriculum of science entirely to scientists. It is, after all, not the only subject your children will take.
Evolution is a well established, well vetted theory, which the scientific community at large thinks should be a key part of science education--so it should be.
This should have nothing to do with religion one way or the other (for or against). The religious and anti-religious discussion points are both (in my opinion) irrelevant; they are distracting us from a more fundamental point on this issue: Who should determine the contents of a course on (say) biology.
I say biologists should.

No problem. As long as it is taught as a "theory" or taught in a philosophy class like Kansas does. There is no getting it out of the classroom anytime soon, unfortunately.

Eye Opener wrote:

...Half-Ape/Half-Man creatures must have died out...I don't see any at the zoo. I would think we would see closer variations still living today...

Where do you think rightwing neo-cons and fundamentalist Christians come from?

Michael in Ocoee wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's say a living cell can evolve.....and I believe it can although not change itself into another unrelated species....it does not answer how the FIRST living cell came to be. Life does not and cannot generate from death. Even "death" is not the right word since "death" indicates something was once alive. Life cannot come from "un-life" (<---I know. It's not a word)

Life can in fact evolve from non-living substances. It has been performed in the laboratory.

Wolffie wrote:

Human beings are comprised of mind, body and soul.
If you can separate the three, just for a moment, and hold your individual religious beliefs to the side momentarily, then perhaps you can consider this: life was created so long ago on this planet in the smallest forms and those individual forms of life evolved and grew into different species, and who's to say that human beings didn't evolve the same way; and it wasn't until our cranium and the brain it contained evolved up to the point where we were able to have conscious thought, memory and guilt and at that time only then would we be able to understand our creation.
Why can't creationism and evolution go hand in hand? Neither takes away from the other, especially if you can consider the wonder of evolution, the act of evolving, having been created by God as part of His creation of life.
To deny the existence and discovery of scientific fact, in my opinion, is to deny the very existence of a higher power that could only have been responsible for making it all come together as perfectly as it did.

Very well put... can't we all just get along?

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually it does not. Evolutionary creationism is an attempt to explain and continues to accept evidence even when it is contrary to what the current theory is.
Fundamental creationism however accepts no evidence contrary to its belief (6 days and all was accomplished) and has no room to change.
Notice the word creationism in both paragraphs? Both sides believe in creation and there is ample room to include God in evolution. Many Christians believe that evolution is the, or one of the tools that God used in creating all.

I am not talking about faith in a religious sense. I am not making that argument here. I am simply saying it takes an element of faith to believe any theory. If something is not a fact (which evolution is not), it is either false or it is a theory.

If it is a theory which someone chooses to believe based upon some sort of evidence (perceived or real), then it takes some element of faith to believe the theory.

Scientist can try to re-invent the word "theory" all they want, but it comes down to: fact, fiction, or theory.

RPW wrote:

With respect to both sides of this debate: None of the arguments I've read here (which, admittedly is only a subset of those posted) addresses the core issue in my mind: Scientists should decide what gets taught in a science classroom.
Not the public at large ...
Not politicians ...
Not even parents ...
To the more religious contributors of this thread: I respect your beliefs, but please consider that an educational topic is not best developed by public committee, but by the experts in that topic. So help educate your child by providing them the context you think is best (e.g., your religious beliefs); however, leave the curriculum of science entirely to scientists. It is, after all, not the only subject your children will take.
Evolution is a well established, well vetted theory, which the scientific community at large thinks should be a key part of science education--so it should be.
This should have nothing to do with religion one way or the other (for or against). The religious and anti-religious discussion points are both (in my opinion) irrelevant; they are distracting us from a more fundamental point on this issue: Who should determine the contents of a course on (say) biology.
I say biologists should.

I would say that biologists along with educators should. I would also add that nothing (the entire course, not individual aspects of it) should be taught without the publics approval.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Life can in fact evolve from non-living substances. It has been performed in the laboratory.

Please provide backup....like a link or something.

Thanks!

That is where you are wrong. There are a number of species that can and have been shown to have evolved due to geographic isolation where the same group was divided by some event (flood, volcano). Finches are a good species. There are several examples including the bones of elephants and other species that are located in areas without any previous record of having these species there thus supporting the pangea or large continental drift theory. For example why are elephant bones found in South America? Seed dispersal is another supporting fact Look at large fruiting trees with large seeds like avocados, mangos. plants do not waste energy producing fruit if not for the reasons that an animal will eat the fruit ingest the seed and then will assist in depositing the seed later as it passes through the system.
I will agree that my faith allows me to believe that God provided the resources and initial spark to start this all (pretty good experiment) and yes this theory has been proven recently as the primordial soup was recreated. The problem was no life began even though protein synthesis did. The explanation god helped. Why is this so hard to believe? Need more support look at the differing races and how each has distinct evolutionary traits (while we all seem similar) that helped them survive in their specific region (i.e. sickle cell)

Please use caution wrote:

That is where you are wrong. There are a number of species that can and have been shown to have evolved due to geographic isolation where the same group was divided by some event (flood, volcano). Finches are a good species. There are several examples including the bones of elephants and other species that are located in areas without any previous record of having these species there thus supporting the pangea or large continental drift theory. For example why are elephant bones found in South America? Seed dispersal is another supporting fact Look at large fruiting trees with large seeds like avocados, mangos. plants do not waste energy producing fruit if not for the reasons that an animal will eat the fruit ingest the seed and then will assist in depositing the seed later as it passes through the system.
I will agree that my faith allows me to believe that God provided the resources and initial spark to start this all (pretty good experiment) and yes this theory has been proven recently as the primordial soup was recreated. The problem was no life began even though protein synthesis did. The explanation god helped. Why is this so hard to believe? Need more support look at the differing races and how each has distinct evolutionary traits (while we all seem similar) that helped them survive in their specific region (i.e. sickle cell)

Please provide like for the the "primordial soup was recreation." If I am wrong, I want to know it.

God certainly has the capability to guide evolution. I just don't think he did. I certainly could be wrong. Please provide backup.

Please use caution wrote:

That is where you are wrong. There are a number of species that can and have been shown to have evolved due to geographic isolation where the same group was divided by some event (flood, volcano). Finches are a good species. There are several examples including the bones of elephants and other species that are located in areas without any previous record of having these species there thus supporting the pangea or large continental drift theory. For example why are elephant bones found in South America? Seed dispersal is another supporting fact Look at large fruiting trees with large seeds like avocados, mangos. plants do not waste energy producing fruit if not for the reasons that an animal will eat the fruit ingest the seed and then will assist in depositing the seed later as it passes through the system.
I will agree that my faith allows me to believe that God provided the resources and initial spark to start this all (pretty good experiment) and yes this theory has been proven recently as the primordial soup was recreated. The problem was no life began even though protein synthesis did. The explanation god helped. Why is this so hard to believe? Need more support look at the differing races and how each has distinct evolutionary traits (while we all seem similar) that helped them survive in their specific region (i.e. sickle cell)

I meant "please provide link."

Michael in Ocoee wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not talking about faith in a religious sense. I am not making that argument here. I am simply saying it takes an element of faith to believe any theory. If something is not a fact (which evolution is not), it is either false or it is a theory.
If it is a theory which someone chooses to believe based upon some sort of evidence (perceived or real), then it takes some element of faith to believe the theory.
Scientist can try to re-invent the word "theory" all they want, but it comes down to: fact, fiction, or theory.

I certainly have to agree with what you stated here. However, I still stand by evolution as a "faith" open to questioning and change.

Michael in Ocoee wrote:

<quoted text>
okboston, you appear here just to vent. Not to participate in any civil dialogue.

Well, the statemetn I was responding to was kind of useless, like my comment.

I just blogged at Evolutionnews.org about this amazing development of the Florida Citizens for Science now being the sole arbiters of who is or is not a part of the "scientific community."

Apparently scientific inquiry is free, only so as long as you adhere to the Darwinian orthodoxy. Otherwise you will find yourself not a part of the "sceintific community."

Michael in Ocoee wrote:

<quoted text>
Please provide backup....like a link or something.
Thanks!

OK, not quite what I had in mind, but close. Read the article, though it is not what I stated earlier, and it will shed some light on the subject through RNA.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.12...

YOu may have to cut and paste the link.