Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'? Doesn't the study of history show that we seldom get anything right?

To say intelligent design is wrong is to also declare that any actual causal theory that might mimic intelligent design is also wrong. If life isn't an accident, then it is driven into existence by forces that we don't yet understand.

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct. And aren't there things about 'evolution' that don't make sense? Originally, our understanding of the history of life was thought to be a nice, gradual and ordered series of events. Then it was found that cataclysmic events have played a role and that cast doubt on the nice gradual theory.

Why do we assume that now we have it right? Why the insistence on the mirage of certainty?

I see two specific problems here. One is that you seem to think evolution describes the emergence of life, which it does not. It only deals with biological changes over time. Two, evolution is a theory. It is taught as if it were certain because of the enormous amounts of evidence supporting it. If some other theory came along that explained our observations better than evolutionary theory, then evolutionary theory would be abandoned or ammended. It is highly unlikely, imho, that evolutionary theory will ever be subplanted, especially not by ID.

[Moontanman]

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'? Doesn't the study of history show that we seldom get anything right?

I would like to point out that evolution isn't thought of as absolute fact nor should it be taught as absolute fact. It is the best theory we have and it is backed up by such overwhelming evidence it's often difficult to think of it as anything other than fact. The only things about it that have been challenged successfully so far have been the fine details.

To say intelligent design is wrong is to also declare that any actual causal theory that might mimic intelligent design is also wrong. If life isn't an accident, then it is driven into existence by forces that we don't yet understand.

ID has absolutely no evidence to back it up, it is supernatural clap trap. Until God shows up personally to confirm it as fact it will remain totally untenable as a theory. It is simply a supernatural based hypothesis with no basis in reality at all. ID assumes that the "intelligent force is God" to say otherwise is disingenuous at best and an out right lie at worst. Science assumes any "guiding force" is a natural by product of the way the universe works.

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct. And aren't there things about 'evolution' that don't make sense? Originally, our understanding of the history of life was thought to be a nice, gradual and ordered series of events. Then it was found that cataclysmic events have played a role and that cast doubt on the nice gradual theory.

Again you are assuming something that simply isn't true, theories are not facts, they are ideas that are backed up by available evidence. A real theory can change as new facts come to light. If enough contradictory facts come to light the theory might be tossed out completely in favor of a new one but no theory is ever thought of as absolutely true. Any theory can be challenged by new evidence. So far all the evidence supports the basic premise of evolution. Some of the details have changed but the idea remains the same. That is why the theory of gradualism contained in the general theory has been modified but the entire theory of evolution is still in place.

Why do we assume that now we have it right? Why the insistence on the mirage of certainty?

What you see as a mirage of certainty is simply the fact of so far overwhelming evidence of the truth of evolution. Your idea of intelligent Design not only has no backing at all in anything but the supernatural it cannot change because it is based on the supernatural. The idea that God did it cannot be backed up by any falsifiable evidence nor can it change to match any new evidence. New evidence is dismissed out of hand in favor of God did it and anything that contradicts that is not admissible. This can be shown by the denial of the evidence for evolution, if ID was a real theory then the people promoting it would have to admit they have no evidence to back it from the natural world and that until they do evolution is the only working theory we have so far.

[koji8123]

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by koji8123

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left?

That's a very common question. The simple answer is that we did not evolve from apes. That said, humans and apes do share a common ancestor. Apes still exist because they were 'fit' for their environment.

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'?
To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct.

Not knowing which theory is correct does not preclude you from determining which ones are wrong...

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by koji8123

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

Why aren't you asking "since amphibians evolved from fish, why are there still fish?"

Review sources like these below. They will help you to get a better understanding of the issues you seem to be struggling with:


Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions - Section A

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions - Section B

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'? Doesn't the study of history show that we seldom get anything right?

To say intelligent design is wrong is to also declare that any actual causal theory that might mimic intelligent design is also wrong. If life isn't an accident, then it is driven into existence by forces that we don't yet understand.

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct. And aren't there things about 'evolution' that don't make sense? Originally, our understanding of the history of life was thought to be a nice, gradual and ordered series of events. Then it was found that cataclysmic events have played a role and that cast doubt on the nice gradual theory.

Why do we assume that now we have it right? Why the insistence on the mirage of certainty?

Originally Posted by koji8123

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

I had to restrain myself from answering this in an insulting manner. This question comes up all the time from creationists and it is always nonsensical. How can I make you see this? If you are decended from Europeans why are there still Europeans? No probably not obvious enough. Just because humans and apes share common ancestors has nothing to do with who is still alive and who's not. But even that answer isn't completely true since even if we were directly descended from, oh say orangutans, why would it be necessary for all orangutans to be dead? If one population of orangutans changed over eons to become humans why couldn't there still be orangutans that didn't evolve? Still not obvious enough? I'll say it straight tout, there is no reason for a population of animals to become extinct just because some of them changed enough to become a new species. You are assuming that a change like that takes place all at once on the entire population. Evolution is not a ladder of ascent, it a a tree with many branches, some longer than others. At one time there were many different species of hominids alive, all of them had a common ancestor in the line of apes. whether or not this ape ancestor is still alive or not isn't known but it is suspected that the modern great apes are side limbs on the tree of life and not directly ancestral to modern humans. But even if chimps or orangutans were indeed direct ancestors of humans there would be no reason for them not to still exist. Evolution is not a ladder of assent or decent. the ladder idea was just a simplification that helped to show how animals can evolve. It has no real bearing on the tree of life or evolution.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by koji8123

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

This question exemplifies the reason evolution should be taught in public schools.

Misconceptions abound.

[REASON]

See ya Ray.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I never claimed to be for intelligent design. And I don't do that now.

I am simply saying that to throw out intelligent design might be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Instead of teaching that intelligent design is wrong, why not teach that there are some people who believe that the complexity of life is such that we don't even comprehend a single cell, much less the intricacies of speciation.

I have nothing against the statement, "Evolution seems to explain much of speciation, but there are still some open questions." Or would you consider that a false statement?

To claim total knowledge of the process of that is to make a somewhat dubious claim, especially as to the 'details'.

But perhaps you are right and people today are smarter than they were 200 years ago since they are now taught in public schools, such bastions of burgeoning intelligence and skepticism.

I am simply a skeptic when it comes to believing that we have overwhelming evidence of any theory.

What is it like to have no doubt, anyway? Is it a religious experience?