|
|
|
|
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 12:30:34 PM | I know there are many threads on this subject, and it almost always opens up a big can of worms. I didn't want to hijack any of the other threads to bring up this angle, though. I believe in evolution myself, but I know many who do not. I know at least one family that is home schooling their children over this disagreement, at least in part. I've heard a Creationist say that doctors and such could still do their jobs quite well without believing in it. Seeing as how a few up and coming presidential candidates also do not agree with it, I think it is a germane subject these days. The US population is already loathe to accept evolution as fact. Sooo...
What if anti-evolutionists got what they wanted? What if evolution were no longer taught in science classes? I don't mean contradicted or replaced; I just mean avoided altogether. I've heard one scientist say that nothing in biology makes sense except when seen in the light of evolution. What would happen to the status of the US (or Canada) in the realm of science? | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 12:43:50 PM | Interesting question.
It is unrealistic to say that nothing would take the place of evolution, because a vacuum would be created, and children who are curious about the world around them, would eventually start asking questions, such as how did we come to be.
If something did take its place however, the evolution aries would sooner or later have to be branded as crazy, and perhaps even laws would have to be passed, as to not “poison young minds” with such heresy.
Perhaps down the road, it would be acceptable to hang infidels, who expressed an opinion, other then the dogma, which would be taught.
The good thing would be, we would not have to fight Islamic terrorists, because we would be much closer to their world view, and perhaps, it would not be too far of a leap from that point, to embrace them as one of us.
Hopefully, at that point, there would still be places left in the world, where people who prefer sanity could move to. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 12:56:05 PM | I wasn't taught Evolution as part of my schooling. I wasn't taught Creationism in school either. School was about Maths, English, French, German, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Ethics, Economics, and P.E. It hasn't hurt me. My only problem is that when I discuss the theory of Evolution with others in order to learn, I find that I am insulted and denigrated, as though I am not "one of the faithful". I feel as though I am being exposed to Scientific Intolerance, and have started to wonder if people who were taught that Evolution was true, have been Indoctrinated as a process of their beliefs.
I would truly like to learn more about the subject. Unfortunately, it seems that Creationists only want to claim that Evolution does not conflict with the Bible, or is false, and Evolutionists don't want to discuss the proof of Evolution as they don't want to discuss the possibility of Evolution being false. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 1:00:27 PM | | That is one of the reasons there is such a problem today, it really has not been taught well in many schools. Many schools are hesitant to offend religious and cultural commuities and take the easy way out by "glossing over" evolution's importance as an idea relevant to all of us. If presented at all, it is as some abstract principle that only certain scientists would really need to understand. Presenting evolution as an idea and uncontroverted scientific fact is considered dangerous territory. I am seeing some changes since the last court ruling. This applies to certain teachers and certain schools. Unfortunately, evolution is still often views as an "optional" topic. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 1:17:13 PM | You know what? I think it wouldn't matter mch if it weren't taught in elementary school. I personally believe it even got started being taught at all because kids like dinosaurs and cave men, so is an interesting subject to them.
You said: "The US population is already loathe to accept evolution as fact."
========
Not quite correct, although the numbers are scarily closer than I would have thought (one of my degrees is in Anthro; I know evolution is fact; the "theory of evolution" is exactly HOW evolution makes something change/evolve scientifically).
========
Polling Data
Some people think that humans and other living things evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?
Jul. 2006
Jul. 2005
Evolved over time
51%
48%
Existed in their present form
since the beginning of time
42%
42%
Don't know / Refused
7%
10%
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 2,003 American adults, conducted from Jul. 6 to Jul. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 1:59:50 PM |
I wasn't taught Evolution as part of my schooling. I wasn't taught Creationism in school either. School was about Maths, English, French, German, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Ethics, Economics, and P.E. It hasn't hurt me.
I stand corrected then. Perhaps nothing would be really different. However, I did enjoy going on with my rant just the same ;) | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 2:09:58 PM | The THEORY of evolution should be taught and in animal husbandry it is very relevant
Gen 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth striped cattle, speckled, and spotted.
Gen 30:40 And Jacob separated the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped, and all the black in the flock of Laban. And he put his own flocks by themselves, and did not put them with the flock of Laban.
Gen 30:41 And it happened when the stronger flocks conceived, Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the flocks in the troughs, so that they might conceive among the rods.
Gen 30:42 But when the flocks were feeble, he did not put them in. And usually it came to be, the weak ones were Laban's and the stronger ones Jacob's. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 2:20:11 PM | What if? There already IS a decided bias regarding the subject matter in the school system........ creating a certain slant within the developing minds of our children... it is up to the parents to fill that gap...
To be honest, that scares the crap out of me... but it's probably best for me to not even get started. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:00:47 PM | | So, what is the decided bias in your school system, and how do you think it will affect the future of these children regarding careers in science, assuming their parents don't really know how to fill such a gap? | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:18:28 PM |
So, what is the decided bias in your school system, and how do you think it will affect the future of these children regarding careers in science, assuming their parents don't really know how to fill such a gap? I think it is apparent in the current School System. Some people believe that G-d created the world, and some people believe in Evolution, and most of those groups believe that each one is WRONG!
That is correct. EACH GROUP BELIEVES THE OTHER IS WRONG!
Science is taught in a manner that suggests that anyone who disagrees with Science is a moron, and a moron is not worthy of respect. So, Science now tells people that people who agree with you are good people, and a slug deserves much more respect than someone who disagrees with you.
This is why I value Science less and less the older I get. I respect Einstein, Newton, Curie, Bacon, Descartes, and many other thinkers. But what am I to do, when Evolution means "I am right, and your opinion only matters if it agrees with mine"? How is that any different than Religious Intolerance? That is why I don't want it taught at school. It extremely accurate. But it seems to me that people are so caught up in this notion, that it is being used to promote anti-religious ideas. I suspect that the main reason why Evolutionists are so adamant that they are right, is that they want to abolish religion, and the only reason that they want to abolish religion, is that they feel that they were treated badly by their parents and their parents were religious, and they have chosen to blame religion, instead of admitting that their parents were human, and not perfect.
In my experience, sticking to any system of belief to the extent where you make fun of others who don't share your belief, is a religion. So, Science and Evolution are more than a fact. It is a Religion in its own right. The minute I realised that Science and Evolution were being used as an implement to force people's will upon others, I started to hate what Science was.
For me, Science was always about the Truth. Truth means you respect others, even if they don't share your truth. The minute Science stopped being about the Truth, it stopped having value.
That is why I have such lack of value for Science.
I believe that only when Science embraces epistemology, and acknowledges that Respect for others is vital for maintaining the integrity of truth, can it have value. At that point, the idea of Creation does not have to conflict with Evolution, because people who believe in Evolution have to respect those who believe in Religion. That means, they have to deal with their own bias against Religion, being those people who hurt them, who were religious. They would have to address their problems with the people who hurt them, and acknowledge that it was people's human weakness that hurt them, not something they believed. Maybe then, everyone would stop fighting each other, and just get on with each other.
It would be really nice if everyone would get on. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:24:23 PM | There is an extension to your question that needs to be clarified.
Evolution is an engine, and natural selection is its fuel. It is 'true' not because it happened, but because the mechanism works, and not just in biology. The engine is used in many sciences, sometimes under a different name. So if we suppose that the topic is excised from Biology, what about the other sciences? Are we supposing that we no longer learn how to cultivate and cross-breed plants to bring out new mutations in a population? And what about computer science, which uses algorithms based on evolution for computationally difficult problems like searching? Or venture capital, where you fund a broad selection of new ideas, expecting most to fail but gambling on that one company which will supplant the mature companies. Or even football, where coaches experiment with new plays and approaches (cover 2, say), and try them for a few plays. Most are abandoned, but a few thrive, and before you know it everybody is adopting it! (Until the next experiment comes along that turns out to be successfull against it.)
So to assume that we don't know evolution means we should assume that we don't know how to do lots of things in other fields that are nothing more than evolution in practice. That would says we are blind to natural selection, and that would change us fundamentally. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:37:43 PM |
For me, Science was always about the Truth. Truth means you respect others, even if they don't share your truth. The minute Science stopped being about the Truth, it stopped having value.
What if evolution is true and creationism is false? Would creationism deserve respect then? Does an idea deserve respect simply because it's an idea?
If you want to find out the evidential status of evolution there are free resources all over the Internet. I suggest starting at www.talkorigins.org | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:50:58 PM | I think it's pretty much a non-issue in Canadian school systems. Evolution is included in science or biology and is part of the provincial [state] curriculum. Creationism is faith-based and unscientific and is not part of a curriculum, nor taught in public schools. Most larger communities have both public and "separate" [Catholic] school systems which are publicly funded. That funding is determined during municipal elections, when you "vote" on which system you support. There are also privately funded schools, including Islamic, secular, and military style, and home schooling is possible. However, ALL schools are subject to the same curriculum and provincial exams. There's no choice in the matter - evolution is part of the science curriculum, and if you wish to teach an alternative, you must do so outside of "public" school.
To the OT - an understanding of evolution is fundamental to far too many fields. A doctor could get by without it, but could a vet? There are thousands of species which a vet might see, and many of those have no veterinary medical information. That makes every vet a potential researcher whose best course of action will be based on an understanding of relationships...which is evolution in another guise. I can think of one medication used to kill certain parasites in snakes and lizards, but I know first hand that that medication is dangerous to ground boas, and from the literature that it's lethal to turtles. Without some knowledge about relationships, how do you choose a dosage, if any? | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 4:19:03 PM | Namegame and FrogO, thanks for the informative responses. That's sort of what I was looking for. I think many anti-evolutionists don't know the negative ramifications of society not studying and using evolution science, and the impact it would have on scientific study itself. I think many would be surprised at how much they benefit from something they so despise. I don't even know all the ramifications, hence this thread.
Scorpiomover, I won't really address your post because it should be posted instead into the evolution thread in the religion forum. No offense intended. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 6:28:18 PM |
What if evolution is true and creationism is false? Would creationism deserve respect then? Does an idea deserve respect simply because it's an idea? What if evolution is false and creationism is true? Would evolution deserve respect then? Does an idea deserve respect simply because it's an idea?
Respect means that someone is worth the effort, not something. To respect someone's ideas, doesn't mean you have to agree with even one idea that person has. It means that you believe that the person thought about their ideas, and wasn't just repeating something parrot-fashion that they were taught in school. It means that you consider their train of thought to be just as valuable as the end result, maybe even more so.
It is a fundamental principle of Scientific Discovery. Newton was not 100% accurate when he wrote his theory on Gravitation, even according to the records that he used to make his theory. He wasn't 0.01% in error. He was 30% in error! His ideas were not right even for his time. But his train of thought, and the way he perceived things, were a vast improvement on the way things had been perceived in the past.
More to the point, respecting someone else's ideas that you disagree with, means that you have the humility that you could be wrong. If before you debate an issue, you must assume that you are right, then you never confirm you are right. You will stick to what you believe in, regardless of the truth. So, the only way that you even come to the truth, is to accept that you could be wrong.
If you want to find out the evidential status of evolution there are free resources all over the Internet. I suggest starting at www.talkorigins.org Thanks. This is exactly the sort of knowledge I need.
Scorpiomover, I won't really address your post because it should be posted instead into the evolution thread in the religion forum. No offense intended. None taken. But there really isn't any point me posting in any thread there. There is only one real thread there: Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting]
This is the Opening Post:
I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
NOTE: This is not one of those threads -
- This one IS -
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?
NOTE: The topic of THIS thread -
(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
Stay on-topic ^^^/off-topic will be deleted.
FURTHER attempts to highjack the thread topic will be dealt with via forum suspension(s). As you can see. The subject is not about proof of evolution. The subject is: Evolution is true. Why should anyone believe in Creationism at all?
It's not the subject at all, and I really don't fancy being blocked, just for an Off-Topic post.
However, On Topic here, my point is simple. It is my opinion that if Evolution was not universally taught, the anti-religious people would scream blue murder that kids would be indoctrinated into believing in Creationism, simply because they are not taught that "Evolution is right, and Creationism is wrong". However, then Evolutionists would write lots of books called "The Proof of Evolution", and finally the issue could be addressed in an open forum without prejudice, as we all know, most people tend to side with what they were taught in school, right or wrong. The only time they tend to disagree with what they learned in school, is when it disagreed with how they wanted to live their life as an adult. It might take 50 years of non-education of Evolution in schools before "confirmation bias" was removed, but it would be well worth the wait in my opinion. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 6:33:11 PM |
What if evolution is true and creationism is false? Would creationism deserve respect then? Does an idea deserve respect simply because it's an idea?
What if evolution is false and creationism is true? Would evolution deserve respect then? Does an idea deserve respect simply because it's an idea?
What if both are true?
And we in our infinite wisdom are just not aware of the truth in both? | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 7:08:35 PM | Scorpiomover, I'm no mod, but I think your post would have been much more relevant to the other thread than this one. That, or the "Proof of Evolution" thread. Try a search and see which one works best. Then I'll be glad to address it.
It is my opinion that if Evolution was not universally taught, the anti-religious people would scream blue murder that kids would be indoctrinated into believing in Creationism, simply because they are not taught that "Evolution is right, and Creationism is wrong".
This is happening anyway. No one really has control over what churches teach little kids.
It might take 50 years of non-education of Evolution in schools before "confirmation bias" was removed, but it would be well worth the wait in my opinion.
That's my question: what would be the scientific ramifications of its absence? I don't think the wait would be at all positive. It is not science's fault that ancient texts taken literally do not agree with evolution, nor is it science's burden to reconcile the two. Science is detached and unemotional. I would say that Creationism is quite the opposite. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 9:01:28 PM |
Scorpiomover, I'm no mod, but I think your post would have been much more relevant to the other thread than this one. That, or the "Proof of Evolution" thread. Try a search and see which one works best. Then I'll be glad to address it. I was not aware of this thread. I shall read it. Thanks.
That's my question: what would be the scientific ramifications of its absence? This, I can answer. It depends on what Scientists think.
1) Common homology of species is a fact, in bone structure, musculature, organs, brain and nerves and common DNA are all established facts.
2) A common homology is vital to provide a common system of diagnosis and treatment, both between humans and between species.
3) It is not necessary to assume a theory of common evolution and ancestry to form a common theory of homology.
4) The main reason why Evolution was so significant in Western Europe, was that Western Europeans tended to believe the different species had a completely different physiology and even different groups of humans were completely different species. Please note that this belief was only common to Western Europeans. Chinese, Indians, Jews, and many others, all believed in a common homology and physiology, and this is why Medicine thrived outside of Western Europe.
5) Evolution made Western Europeans and Americans believe that all humans descended from a common ancestor, one common ape, and that all species were similarly derived from one common ancestor. This made the Westerners think that a common homology existed.
6) If Westerners, including the US and Canada, were to return to this idea that only common acestry implied common homology, then a lack of belief in a common ancestor would be incredibly destructive to the power of medicine in the UK, US, Canada, and Europe. Also, they could quite easily return to their belief that Africans were a different species than Europeans.
7) This wouldn't be a problem for Chinese, Indians, Jews, or other races, because they never thought that way in the first place. Genocides did happen. But no-one but the Aryan Supremacists (Aryan means European), ever thought that Africans were a different species, or that medicine that worked on a pig, could never work on a human.
8) If Scientists can accept that common ancestry is unnecessary for a common homology and a common form of medicine, then Evolution is not necessary for the advancement of Science. At least, in my opinion. | |
|
| |
| |
svj
|
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 21 | |
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/5/2007 11:18:35 PM |
If something did take its place however, the evolution aries would sooner or later have to be branded as crazy, and perhaps even laws would have to be passed, as to not “poison young minds” with such heresy.
I certainly hope so. Crazy ramblings of harmless lunatics don't get banned.
I find that only legitmate ideas that have applications that can be used against people in power are subject to censorship.
While that can be a good or bad thing, depending on the subject matter, I almost always want to learn more about a subject after books about it are declared illegal somewhere. It's a great way to ensure that the information will always survive in some context. (In the underground counter-culture)
There's just something about being told I'm not allowed to do or know something that makes me drool out of the side of my mouth a little bit...  | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/6/2007 1:00:45 AM | Hi all...
Evolution and Creationism? They actually aren't that different. The problem is in the last translation of the Bible that said God created everything in 6 'days' instead of 6 'periods of time.'
Yes, Evolution has flaws to it, but so does most Scientific Theories.
2 flaws with the theory of Evolution.
a) What did the very first form of life eat? If it was the first? This microbe had no food available.
b) If Human's and Apes evolved from the same common ancester? How come there are still Apes?
2 problems with Creationism.
a) Talk to a Vet about where all our Dog breeds have come from.
b) Proof of Vegetation evolving over short periods of time to adapt to fluctuating environments.
A bonus one. If not for Evolution? We wouldn't have a problem with Super Bugs that ummm kill us and are impervious to various new generation medicines. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/6/2007 1:16:59 AM | a) What did the very first form of life eat? If it was the first? This microbe had no food available.
Inorganic compounds. The first forms of life were probably so simplistic we'd hardly recognize them as living things.
This isn't an issue of evolution though, it's actually an issue called abiogenesis , which deals with how life began.
Evolution deals with what happens after life has begun.
b)b) If Human's and Apes evolved from the same common ancester? How come there are still Apes?
Evolution doesn't require the end of a previous organisms existance. They can become ecologically isolated. Lets say an insect is on two seperate continents, changes in the ecology which produce an evolutionairy change on one continent, wouldn't neccesarily change it on the other right?
Not that this thread is about this argument (hell we have enough of those) | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/6/2007 3:33:36 AM | With the US always pulling up last or close to last in education when compared to most other industrialized countries, it's not surprising that many do not believe evolution. Just watch 'The View' for a good sampling of the basic knowledge of many adults. One of those women doesn't know if the world if flat or round and thinks christians have been around long before Jesus. WTF?
Bring up evolution and people start foaming at the mouth about "I'm not a $#*^ monkey!"
But back to the point of the thread... I don't think it really matters if evolution is taught or not IN THE US. We have politicized our schools where they are expected to do everything but teach, so who cares? The rest of the world will embrace science even if we don't and we will lose even more of our intellectual edge.
I just wish more of the people who oppose evolution would also oppose gravity or electromagnetism. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/6/2007 4:59:23 PM |
Pretty much throw the entire field of genetics out the window. Cross-breeding, in flowers, grains, fruits, vegetables, and animals, has been around since way before Natural Selection was a twinkle in Darwin's eye, maybe as far back as the Egyptians.
A bonus one. If not for Evolution? We wouldn't have a problem with Super Bugs that ummm kill us and are impervious to various new generation medicines. MRSA is a fact. You don't need to believe in Evolution to know that Super Bugs that are resistant to over-prescribed common medicines exist.
However, I would like to point out that although MRSA infections are a big problem in many hospitals in the UK, Broomfields hospital returned to the old-fashioned system of cleanliness in hospitals and eliminated it with a 100% success rate. Despite this being reported in the media, and that the media reported that it costs £5 billion ($10 billion US) a year, the UK government didn't even attempt doing a clinical trial across 10 hospitals, to see if it could be a cheap solution to MRSA. Instead, they elected on getting drug companies to come up with expensive vaccinations and treatments. Sometimes, the old-fashioned ways really are the best.
I just wish more of the people who oppose evolution would also oppose gravity or electromagnetism. I can let go of an apple any time I like and it always falls to the ground, provided there is nothing between it and the ground except for air. However, I just have never heard of a dog giving birth to a new species. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
