Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kite

if you want to teach it to the students, should we not be sure what we are teaching is supportable and correct? And is there no room for dispute of the supposed facts?

You're kind of late coming in. The biological community has been in consensus about the fact of evolution -that populations change over time and that all life has descended from common ancestry- for over a century. Biologists have not for quite some time seriously disputed whether or not evolution happened, but rather how it happened; the theory of evolution.
Today, the theory is still hotly disputed in scientific journals. Questions like 'how is this population evolving', 'how do populations evolve in general and how can changing genes be modeled over generations', or 'how did such and such specific population or lineage of organisms evolve over time', but whether or not evolution happens is just a matter of science fact at this point.

You might do well to read the 'evolution as theory and fact' page on wikipedia, as it is a good summary of the issues at hand:
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Edit*******
It just occurred to me that you are obviously not familiar with the evidence for evolution at all, so you can't really be expected to make a competent assessment at this point anyway.
Talkorigins hosts many papers reviewed and written by working evolutionary biologists, and this page is a large compilation of the evidence for common descent:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

I believe that the evidence presented on that page is much more than enough to convince any reasonable person that evolution is a science fact explained by a body of valid scientific theories.

Additionally, you may want to check out the wiki page on 'evidence for common descent':
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mr. Kite]

Galapagos, in spite of the implicit insult in your post, I will be happy to read the information you suggest so that I have a good grasp of your particular "religion". However, having studied the "lay" literature from both sides, I know it takes a lot of faith on the part of evolution believers to keep their theory afloat. Keep in mind your beliefs are based upon no actual proof but only interpretation of the evidence...which is skewed by one's underlying beliefs. See the "Get Answers" section of Answers In Genesis website. See also the textbook In the Beginning[U[/U] by Walt Brown, Ph.D. These sources will help you understand why there is proof of the global flood...it's all around you. Nonetheless, see my earlier post regarding the actual teaching of Creationism in schools.

[InfiniteNow]

Anyone care to change their original vote?

[Mr. Kite]

I know EXACTLY what you mean, InfiniteNow. I keep trying to get back to the actual/original topic here, but keep getting led off the path to the "What is the Truth" topic. I assume that's what you meant anyway, huh?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kite

I know EXACTLY what you mean, InfiniteNow.

No, actually... Pretty sure you don't. I encourage you to keep trying to figure it out, though.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kite

Really. I don't see so much of that. This is the thread re: evolution MUST be taught in schools, and I am replying to that. See drdino...

This is a science site. The forum rules are not open to debate and we know well a troll when we see one. As a rule, do not post links to religious sites outside the theology forum.

Your "drdino" is Kent Hovind, creator of the website "Creation Science Evangelism". He is an anti-semitic, anti-government, conspiracy theorist nutcase who is currently spending 10 years in federal prison for among other things:

falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits... and various tax-related charges.

No more of that [stern look]

~modest

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kite

You are listed as a "moderator".

Correct.

Though not, I gather, an unbiased one.

Correct.

Who gets to decide which scientists are "legitimate".

Science gets to decide. Scientists are merely robots. The results exceed the virtues of the performers.

And do you accept the previous statement that there are no problems whatsoever with the theory of evolution.

Absolutely not! If you have evidence that contradicts the theory, please present it, otherwise, you have no basis for argument.

THAT is my point in this thread...if you want to teach it to the students, should we not be sure what we are teaching is supportable and correct? And is there no room for dispute of the supposed facts?

Science is not close-minded. The biggest problem with science is the lack of education. Science requires that you have specific knowledge before understanding specific problems. In other words, if you are content with the relationship between a light bulb turning on and the flick of a light switch, it's unlikely that you will ever fully appreciate Evolutionary Theory, not to mention most other scientific theories. Science demands curiosity and exploration. One who decides on a whim that Evolutionary Theory is incomplete has not explored the immense knowledge base showing the opposite findings, nor have they actively researched the subject.

I would hope, Mr. Kite, that you would seek to understand your target more. Every successful advertising scheme is based upon this.

[lemit]

This kind of takes us away from the tenor of this thread, but it's something I need to say just for me:

I don't know how many of the rest of you are of a certain age and grew up in the Bible Belt. I am, and I did. Those of you who are like me should not have trouble with the idea that this is a Christian nation. We can quote scripture freely. The names of the Gospels trip off our tongues. Even if we are no longer practicing Christians, we feel something undefineable but deeply important on Christmas Eve and Easter morning. I'm sure those from other traditions have those feelings at other times for other reasons.

The Bible Belt of the 1950's is most likely similar to the world the Founding Fathers lived in. It is the world today's political leaders must live in, my local member of Congress has whispered in my ear, so it is probably the world the Founding Fathers needed to publicly live in.

That's fine with me. It's fine with me because it should include the Christian qualities of understanding and forgiveness. It should include all those elements that make up our moral compass. Most of all, it should include the Christian quality of charity.

We should express that quality of charity by accepting in our midst those of other beliefs. We should express the quality of charity by being willing to learn from others. We should express the quality of charity by being inquisitive about the world occupied by us and by others.

We should love our neighbors as ourselves, regardless of their their races, genders, religions, or understandings of the natural world.

Does that make sense? If not, then you can stop reading this. If it does, how do we achieve love of those who understand the natural world in a way we don't? We establish a base of knowledge from which all of us can deviate. But that base will still be there, like the base of Bible Belt Christianity will always be inside me. The base for understanding the natural world is the scientific method and where it has led us the last few centuries. If we lose that base, we lose our intellectual compass.

We are no better off without an intellectual compass than without a moral compass.

--lemit

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by lemit

This kind of takes us away from the tenor of this thread, but it's something I need to say just for myself:

I don't know how many of the rest of you are of a certain age and grew up in the Bible Belt. I am, and I did. Those of you who are like me should not have trouble with the idea that this is a Christian nation. We can quote scripture freely. The names of the Gospels trip off our tongues. Even if we are no longer practicing Christians, we feel something undefineable but deeply important on Christmas Eve and Easter morning. I'm sure those from other traditions have those feelings at other times for other reasons.

The Bible Belt of the 1950's is most likely similar to the world the Founding Fathers lived in. It is the world today's political leaders must live in, my local member of Congress has whispered in my ear, so it is probably the world the Founding Fathers needed to publicly live in.

That's fine with me. It's fine with me because it should include the Christian qualities of understanding and forgiveness. It should include all those elements that make up our moral compass. Most of all, it should include the Christian quality of charity.

We should express that quality of charity by accepting in our midst those of other beliefs. We should express the quality of charity by being willing to learn from others. We should express the quality of charity by being inquisitive about the world occupied by us and by others.

We should love our neighbors as ourselves, regardless of their their races, genders, religions, or understandings of the natural world.

Does that make sense? If not, then you can stop reading this. If it does, how do we achieve love of those who understand the natural world in a way we don't? We establish a base of knowledge from which all of us can deviate. But that base will still be there, like the base of Bible Belt Christianity will always be inside me. The base for understanding the natural world is the scientific method and where it has led us the last few centuries. If we lose that base, we lose our intellectual compass.

We are no better off without an intellectual compass than without a moral compass.

--lemit

I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt. How does this relate to the thread subject?

[lemit]

It is just my feeble way of suggesting to Mr. Kite that we should allow science to go where it will go instead of forcing something possibly of great value in other areas of our life to impose itself upon the teaching of science.

Sorry to interrupt.

--lemit