Should we teach both Evolution and Intelligent Design in science classes?

[the_bob_delusion]

Should we teach both and let the students decide for themselves?

Go

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Did you not read my last line?

---

You obviously don't have a science background. Your "line" doesn't even make sense. 

---

No I don't have a science background but I did teach 2 semesters of Creating Theories (as a basis for design creation) so I know what 'theory' is.

---

Theory used in the scientific context is very different. 

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Did you not read my last line?

---

I did read it but just because religion isn't taught in public schools doesn't mean all kids that attend public schools are athiest.  Learning about evolution in high school turned most of my friends athiest. If they were un sure about the existence of God, learning evolution seemed to give them the proof they needed to clarify their doubts.  

---

That post wasn't for you. It was for bob who was nitpicking. He does that when he is bored and wants to argue for no reason. And I know he enjoys it - am I right bob lol?

(And for the mods - that is not an interpersonal remark. Bob and I get along quite well thanks)

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

Should we teach both and let the students decide for themselves?

Go

---

Yes.

---

So what exactly should we teach about intelligent design???

---

They should teach neither.

They should stick to facts and the only facts we know are evolution based.

---

and what facts are those?

---

Can I ask you Rabbit. Do you think 99% of the scientists out there are delusional when they say Evolution best explains all the animal species?

---

Do they? If they do, it's only because they deny that God exists so therefore evolution is their only explanation.

---

99% of the scientist, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Atheists etc etc. They all come to the same conclusion, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Some conspiracy isn't it. 

---

again, you keep saying evolution when you mean abiogenesis - as I have said MANY times but you obviously keep missing it - I believe in the evolution that says 'things change' within their group or whatever the correct term is - but they don't evolve into something else or grow legs to avoid predators.

---

??? I am talking about evolution. Scientists don't yet have a solution for abiogenesis. Your last sentence suggest you don't even understand what you don't believe in. 

---

I know what you are talking about - abiogenesis - microbial life came out of nothing - and then it evolved into everything we have today - and I say - CODSWALLOP! Show me your FACTS that all of this happened.

---

Oh boy.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Did you not read my last line?

---

I did read it but just because religion isn't taught in public schools doesn't mean all kids that attend public schools are athiest.  Learning about evolution in high school turned most of my friends athiest. If they were un sure about the existence of God, learning evolution seemed to give them the proof they needed to clarify their doubts.  

---

That post wasn't for you. It was for bob who was nitpicking. He does that when he is bored and wants to argue for no reason. And I know he enjoys it - am I right bob lol?

(And for the mods - that is not an interpersonal remark. Bob and I get along quite well thanks)

---

I was quite offended. Ban her. 

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Did you not read my last line?

---

You obviously don't have a science background. Your "line" doesn't even make sense. 

---

No I don't have a science background but I did teach 2 semesters of Creating Theories (as a basis for design creation) so I know what 'theory' is.

---

Theory used in the scientific context is very different. 

---

Did you not read post 90?

Either way the core principles are the same. It is the methodologies that are different.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

That post wasn't for you. It was for bob who was nitpicking. He does that when he is bored and wants to argue for no reason. And I know he enjoys it - am I right bob lol?

(And for the mods - that is not an interpersonal remark. Bob and I get along quite well thanks)

---

I was quite offended. Ban her. 

---

Lol! Then you'll miss me wontcha? You'll be stuck arguing with...errr....never mind...

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Patterns of human evolution, patterns of human mutations, the study of DNA, gene flow research, the study of divergence and separation - I could go on forever. Not sure what you want. Or are you suggesting that there are NO facts documented for how our species has evolved?

Like all sciences, biological evolution is a mix of facts and theory. But even the theory is based on strong research and analysis.

---

Even you don't understand the term theory as used in science. THeory in science is not a "guess" . "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmedthrough observation and experimentation."

Just like the atomic theory or gravitational theory. These theory like evolution is strongly supported by evidence. We actually understand a lot more about evolution than the gravitational theory. 

---

I know what theory, scientific method, repeated testing etc is - you have explained it to me several times and I have read about it. BUT, can you explain how they test evolution. They  say - once there was a x and million years later there was a y so therefore x must have evolved into y. That's NOT proof and it's not method, testing or observation, or experimentataion - IT'S GUESSWORK, ASSUMPTION.

---

When there's a crime scene, investigator can use the evidence and piece together what happened. Evolution is like that except they're tonnes and tonnes of evidence and every one of them point to the same thing. Evolution. 

---

You cannot compare a crime scene with evolution. A crime scene is a concrete area where a concrete event took place - leaving evidence like murder weapon, fingerprints etc.

Where is this tonnes of evidence that all point to evolution? Fossil records?  DNA? As I said above, an ounce of evidence and a TON of assumption. 

[k0llectable5]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Not sure what school you went to but I doubt very much that even a mention of 'god' comes up in a science class on biological evolution. There is really no need for it to be addressed.

It certainly isn't part of the curriculum in public schools unless part of religion. Ad even then I am sure they aren't allowed to promote it.

---

The teachers didn't have to mention God.  We already had it in our minds that once we learnt about evolution, we would be able to prove that God didn't create us.  

They dont need to promote it because by default it directly opposes Christianity.  Kids mostly talk outside of the classroom...

---

So how can they be "indoctrinated" if (as you yourself point out) you have made assumptions about what they were leaving OUT of your science class?

It seems to me you went into that classroom already "indoctrinated" by religion and a closed mind.

---

They are indoctrinated because theories are presented as hard facts, absolute truths if you like. 

Please dont resort to personal judgements.  I actually found the classes to be fascinating in high school and in university.  You have no idea how I was raised or how open or closed my mind is.  When debating someone try not to resort to ad hominem attacks, it's the first sign of intellectual weakness...

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

??? I am talking about evolution. Scientists don't yet have a solution for abiogenesis. Your last sentence suggest you don't even understand what you don't believe in. 

---

I know what you are talking about - abiogenesis - microbial life came out of nothing - and then it evolved into everything we have today - and I say - CODSWALLOP! Show me your FACTS that all of this happened.

---

Try Urey Miller.

Sheesh!

[the_great_she_elephant]

Do they? If they do, it's only because they deny that God exists so therefore evolution is their only explanation.

Or maybe it's the complete reverse: maybe it's realising that evolution is the only explanation that makes sense of the world we live in has led them to the conclusion that God does not exist