[SakmonKi]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/ar...00010000000001

"Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether a suburban Atlanta school district had the right to put stickers on biology textbooks describing evolution as a theory, not fact. A federal judge last January ordered the stickers removed."

I, as a member of the "mob", had never heard that evolution is not an explaination for the origins of life before I came to this website. All through my school years and discussions throughout my life with people whom I thought "knew better", I was presented the contention that Darwinian evolution explains macro-biology as well as micro. In school it is said to be proven fact.

In light of this, has the general public not fully understood Darwinian evolution, or has the general public been deceived into believing it to be the explaination of the origin of life?

Has the scientific community ever done anything to counteract this misunderstanding?

[Bio-Hazard]

There is a reason there is SUNDAY SCHOOL!

For what I remember about darwinism is that somehow species evolve over time due to environment change. Now I may understand it wrong, but I do know one thing. Evolution takes a long freaking time.

I consider a mutation a step in evolution. Mutation that leads to procreation with the trait in the offspring making it over a period of time called evolution.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by SakmonKi

[url]hI...had never heard that evolution is not an explaination for the origins of life before I came to this website. ...I was presented the contention that Darwinian evolution explains macro-biology as well as micro. In school it is said to be proven fact. In light of this, has the general public not fully understood Darwinian evolution..? Has the scientific community ever done anything to counteract this misunderstanding?

You did not go to public schools in the United States of America, did you? Lucky you. When I was in the 9th and 11th grades here in the USA, two different science teachers tried to mention Charles Darwin and explain why he was considered a great scientist. That was all. Both were fired.

In the USA, there is a lot of science, and even more of history, that is "missing" in the classroom, because it would be disagreeable to one religious sect or another. Up until the 1960's, many (if not most) small town high schools in the South had a local preacher on the school board, or serving as principal.

Up until recently, the scientific community had hoped that if they ignored the problem it would go away. And besides, they were teaching REAL science (including evolution) in the colleges and universities, and assumed that the churches had no power there. Things have changed.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by SakmonKi

I had never heard that evolution is not an explaination for the origins of life before I came to this website. All through my school years and discussions throughout my life with people whom I thought "knew better", I was presented the contention that Darwinian evolution explains macro-biology as well as micro. In school it is said to be proven fact.

Evolutionists are quite conflicted about this question, in my experience. I have heard people defend evolution by saying that it doesn't purport to explain origins. But you generally only get that response once you've backed an evolutionist into a corner by asking them to explain where, for example, genetic information originated from in evolutionary terms. At this point they are confronted with the stark inadequacy of evolutionary theory and so they capitulate and say that "Oh, well, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origin of life."

However, you are correct to notice that our school system presents evolution, in general, as a fact, and indeed as an explanation of the origin of life. And the media does as well. And with the recent dust-up in Kansas where the decision was made to "allow" the scientific weaknesses of evolution to be taught alongside of the scientific strengths, and the amount of controversy that generated, is proof positive that evolutionists are very protective of their precious little theory and don't generally appreciate having to admit that evolution even has weaknesses.

Originally Posted by SakmonKi

In light of this, has the general public not fully understood Darwinian evolution, or has the general public been deceived into believing it to be the explaination of the origin of life?

Yes, and yes.

Originally Posted by SakmonKi

Has the scientific community ever done anything to counteract this misunderstanding?

No, not really. They don't want the scrutiny. They don't want the shoddy science of macro-evolution to be uncovered. So, the less we understand, the better.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Up until recently, the scientific community had hoped that if they ignored the problem it would go away.

I wonder, Pyrotex -- about the State of Kansas decision I mentioned above, where scientific weaknesses of evolution will now be taught alongside the strengths (I will assume for the moment that you oppose that decision, my apologies, and disregard the following if you do not) -- on what grounds would you oppose it? Do you believe there are no scientific weaknesses in evolutionary theory? Or, do you acknowledge that there are scientific weaknesses but think we should actually hide those weaknesses from our children?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

But you generally only get that response once you've backed an evolutionist into a corner by asking them to explain where, for example, genetic information originated from in evolutionary terms.

That sounds kind of biased to me. I think it would be more accurate to say that the question of where genetic information originated should back all claimants into a corner. There is no evidence to conclude any theory that attempts to explain the origins of genetic information is the one and only answer. When any scientist, evolutionist or otherwise, is asked "how did life begin" the only true answer is "we don't know".

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by C1ay

That sounds kind of biased to me. I think it would be more accurate to say that the question of where genetic information originated should back all claimants into a corner. There is no evidence to conclude any theory that attempts to explain the origins of genetic information is the one and only answer. When any scientist, evolutionist or otherwise, is asked "how did life begin" the only true answer is "we don't know".

Absolutely.

And the only people who pertain to 'know for a fact' how life came to be, is the Intelligent Design troupe. And they claim Life to be intentionally designed by some unnamed, untestable, imaginary 'intelligence', without any evidence whatsoever. And that is not science. Simple.

Therefore, it's a good thing that 'ID' is chucked out of Science class. You don't have to throw it out of school, however. Relegate it to Philosophy or metaphysics. That's where it belongs. I just wish they could see this and understand it, once and for all.

[cwes99_03]

I think everyone needs to read the Wikipedia entry on the scopes trial. While I hold the wikipedia isn't necessarily the best source for all of ones information, this article seems to be well written.
The key point being that the Butler Act did not require that creation be taught, but that evolution not be taught because of it's teaching that man ascended from primates.
Seems to me that the same is being done only in reverse. ID is being banned not because it is scientifically unfounded, but because it comes to close to the religious teaching of creationism.

Maybe both should be banned from school, as they are both lacking in proof, and if either one is being taught then religion is at issue. I say this with the thought that my freedom to pursue my own religion should mean that I not be force fed something that goes completely against my religious beliefs, such as the stance that man could not have been created but evolved from a single celled organism.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

I say this with the thought that my freedom to pursue my own religion should mean that I not be force fed something that goes completely against my religious beliefs, such as the stance that man could not have been created but evolved from a single celled organism.

But it seems to me that the public education system has a duty to educate students in the best manner possible.

Modern biological science (wether you "believe" in it or not) can really only be understood in the context of evolution, so should biology not be taught? It used to be considered religious truth that the Earth was at the center of the universe, should we not teach Newtonian physics, as it seems to indicate that the Earth moves?
-Will

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

But it seems to me that the public education system has a duty to educate students in the best manner possible.

I agree completely. Ditch evolution.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Modern biological science (wether you "believe" in it or not) can really only be understood in the context of evolution

This is merely your opinion, Erasmus.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

But it seems to me that the public education system has a duty to educate students in the best manner possible.

Modern biological science (wether you "believe" in it or not) can really only be understood in the context of evolution, so should biology not be taught? It used to be considered religious truth that the Earth was at the center of the universe, should we not teach Newtonian physics, as it seems to indicate that the Earth moves?
-Will

The idea that the Earth was at the center of the universe, as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, had and continues to have no basis in the Bible. Above and beyond this, it is a proven fact that it is not.
Biology does not require evolution. I can learn a whole lot about the physiology of men, without being taught that man originated from primates, and that primates originated from dolphins, and that dolphins originated from single-celled organisms, which began in a primordial soup of acids created by a lightning strike in an atmosphere of methane and oxygen.
If one insists on teaching the theory of evolution, then why can one not teach the theory of creation. Simply put, one does not require there to be a God, and the other does. So the government says that for everyone to be able to formulate their own opinions freely on whether there is or is not a God, or which God suits them best, they say it can't be taught. I am simply contending that by teaching evolution, the government is instead saying that the idea that there is a creator is preposterous, thereby making it difficult for kids to formulate their own opinions on whether there is or is not a God because they have to say that evolution is the explanation on some test. Of course those of us who refused to say so, were given a big black mark saying that we were wrong (enforced atheism.)