Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why We Must Teach Evolution in the Science Classroom
Red Orbit ^ | Saturday, 2 August 2008 | Laura Lorentzen

Posted on 08/02/2008 8:44:19 AM PDT by Soliton

don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."

Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.

(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: creationism; education; evolution; id; redschools; redsteachingyourkids; scienceeducation; solitonspeaks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-260 next last
To: MHGinTN

I do not know, I’ve only scanned the koko/allball stuff and haven’t driven down deep on it. But if there is any hint of such awareness, it would prove to be a starting point to this discussion. That’s good science, right?


221 posted on 08/02/2008 10:50:25 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state.

That one, guess I need to proof read before I post away.


222 posted on 08/02/2008 10:50:45 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Do you mean ASBE (All Species By Evolution) or just "microevolution" or variation within a kind?

The microevolution/ macroevolution dichotomy is a creationist talking point. There is every reason to believe that evolution is a continuum driven by natural selection.

If you're talking about ASBE, then Genome comparisons do not prove to millions of people that evolution is true, because they haven't seen the data themselves - they still have to have faith in people about things they've never seen - and that's faith not science.

The average IQ is 100 (by definition). Most people are too dumb to understand or care about science. You and I have a different concept of faith.

Furthermore, common DNA sequences could just as well be from a common designer!

Anything that evolution does can be and often is attributed to a designer. Unfortunately, no one has ever produced any evidence of a designer. If they had every scientist would be an ID proponent. Design is a discipline. Godd design has earmarks. A perfect designer would not have to make the complicated half-assed biological compromises we see in nature. A perfect design is always elegantly simple with no wasted steps. The study of genomes shows lots of mistakes, steps forward and back. They show trial and error type of evolution exactly as predicted by Darwin.

Cultures reward compliant behavior and punish noncompliant behavior. Killing is mostly injurious to the social contract, so cultures have evolved to view most killing as evil.

It is true and you can apply the same formula to all of the ten commandments. Even in the muzzie countries murder is against the law. Cultural laws always have exceptions. Most Christian conservatives are for the death penalty for example.

223 posted on 08/02/2008 11:59:59 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You are suggesting that someone change his religious beliefs and practices. I thought you weren't into preaching.

Believe what you want, but don't call it science. Words have meaning. I never said I wasn't into preaching. I'm preaching science.

224 posted on 08/03/2008 12:13:43 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I’ve added you to my do not respond list since you only want to spout of about privatizing schools. Start your own threads.


225 posted on 08/03/2008 12:21:36 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Anthropogenic global warming is “science”.

No AGW is a socialist Trojan horse masquerading as science for the purpose of furthering a political agenda in the same way that "Intelligent Design is a Trojan horse designed to further a religious one. Scientists must fight and are fighting liars for communism and liars for God.

226 posted on 08/03/2008 12:25:52 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

I dated an EE, FUN GUY! I am hoping to pick some Geologist’s brain about meteor craters at some point. My interest in bible study is the main reason I became interested in science.


227 posted on 08/03/2008 3:21:30 AM PDT by beefree (AMERICA BLESS GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

“devoid of any concept of God”

According to the bible, this is not possible. Every (hu)man is given a measure of faith. This is the “God shaped void” of non-believers.


228 posted on 08/03/2008 3:47:45 AM PDT by beefree (AMERICA BLESS GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

“AGW is a socialist Trojan horse”

amen, brother. Y’all check out ICECAP.US for anti-AGW info. Swamps and volcanoes are worse than humans. (except maybe Al Gore)


229 posted on 08/03/2008 3:57:57 AM PDT by beefree (AMERICA BLESS GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: metmom
First Amendment, they ignore the *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * part.

The ruse of those who would argue religion can not be discussed or even mentioned in public discourse are too nescient of the basic tenant and general history.

Willfull ignorance is no excuse to not realise the intent of the admendment. By holding an arrogant silly fear they destroy one of the most cherished precepts the human soul could ever adorn.

230 posted on 08/03/2008 4:42:07 AM PDT by sirchtruth (Vote Conservative Repuplican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Actually, our country has a Constitution that makes the federal government keep it's hands off religion.

It says nothing about keeping religion out of the state.

That would be pretty incongruous in light of this:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

231 posted on 08/03/2008 5:25:02 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
How else is it possible to respond to this article without mentioning schools? The following addresses the points made in the article.

don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media.

I wonder if this gal was born yesterday. With regard to government schools evolution has been a hot bed of community conflict since before the 1930s. (Scopes Trial). Funny, but we never hear about these curriculum cat fights in private schools.

As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution.

She will quickly find that most government teachers are not bright enough or sufficiently educated to understand or grasp anything but the broadest outline of evolution. Government teachers have the lowest SATs and GREs on campus. Few teachers have taken anything more than Algebra for arts majors or anything other than the most minimal science for arts majors.

OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state.

WRONG! WHAT A FOOL!

I am wondering about this gal's education. I bet she considers herself educated. Separation of church and state can not be found in our nation's founding documents.

There is a prohibition against government **establishment** of religion.

Our First Amendment also states that we have a right to freely express our religious belief. That is generally ignored by the evolutionists and liberal/Marxists who support compulsory, police threat, godless, government indoctrination.

Compulsory, police enforced, government schools FORBID free expression of religion for nearly all of the compulsory, police threat day! Compulsory, police threat, government schools also FORBID free association, free speech, and free press. Government schools also subject children to a godless religious philosophy nearly every minute of every compulsory, police threat day!

Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for education to be religious neutral. It is axiomatic. ( Gee! I bet this gal thinks she is educated.)

The government **must** choose between teaching from a godless worldview or a God-centered one. NEITHER is religiously neutral in content or consequences!

Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools;

Courts are not always right. And....As far as I know evolution in the government schools has never been considered by the Supreme Court. Also....When it comes to compulsory, police enforced, government schools, the courts have always rule narrowly and have never ( to my knowledge) considered that education can never be religiously neutral.

yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom.

I bet if the anti evolutionists were given a complete and total lifetime refund for the money paid for government schools they would stop pressing. Also,...If the money now allocated to the atheistic government schools were directed to their children in the form of tax credits and vouchers they would stop pressing.

Also,...This stupid, ill-educated gal probably doesn't realize that there are HUNDREDS of issues that community groups war over in the government schools. Why? Because the government must make a binary decision on hundreds of religious non-neutral issues. No matter what the police threat government schools decide one side's religious worldview will win and the other will lose.

Mabybe those with God-centered worldviews press for their side because they are under police threat to pay for the godless government schools and would like their worldview given time and recognition.

Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."

Well...Gee! Even hard core evolutionists ( when cornered) admit that evolution still fits the strict definition of "theory". It isn't an experiment that can be duplicated using the scientific method.

Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools.

What needs to be considered here is the fact that as long as we have compulsory, police threat, godless government schools, there will be continual curriculum and policy wars. There can be no compromise because to compromise is to lie to one's conscience!

What needs to be considered is that government schools are a freedom of conscience ABOMINATION!!!

Also?....I bet she would consider those of us who want our children educated in an environment with a God-centered worldview, to be uneducated.I am willing to bet that she considers those of us who resent paying for godless government schools as being uneducated.

Finally, anyone who "believes" that "Separation of Church and State" exists in our nation's founding documents is a blithering idiot.

There is a solution to the continual curriculum and policy wars in our compulsory, godless, police threat government indoctrination centers.

Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 schools.

232 posted on 08/03/2008 6:42:04 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
I still think your position boils down to one which insists that someone, in this case God, must tell us what is right and what is wrong, and that without that instruction we are unable to discern it by ourselves.

I have no doubt that makes it easier, but I guess the question becomes whether right and wrong would exist at all if God didn't define it for us. I think it does, because it isn't some arbitrary dictate; it's a whole set of principles which are consistent.

I don't think it comes down to a situation where a deity says this is right and this is wrong and if you don't agree with me, I'll fry your butt in hell.

There is precious little in the Ten Commandments that we couldn't have figured out for ourselves as the best course of conduct. Perhaps the Sabbath and the admonition against graven images wouldn't have been intuitive, but I think everything else regarding conduct is.

But I could be wrong.

233 posted on 08/03/2008 6:56:09 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; mrjesse
I have no doubt that makes it easier, but I guess the question becomes whether right and wrong would exist at all if God didn't define it for us. I think it does, because it isn't some arbitrary dictate; it's a whole set of principles which are consistent.

A male lion's conduct is consistent when it kills the offspring of rival males. A cuckcoo's behavior is consistent when it places its egg in another's nest. Chimpanzees often murder and eat their kind. Human conduct includes eating humans. Finally, what you determine is right or wrong is the product of human civilization which includes Christianity.

As to the ten commandments being an inevitable outcome of some unnamed process, please indicate how the concept of covet fits in? How about fornication? From what I see in the news, those two concepts are having a rough time among many others.

234 posted on 08/03/2008 7:23:26 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

All of the commandments are having a rough time among the world population. That’s not the issue. Surely you’d agree that if there is a right and wrong, that people are able to choose wrong.

You know full well what the negative implications to fornication and coveting are. How? Only from the Bible? Or can you observe the effects for yourself?


235 posted on 08/03/2008 7:31:02 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Exactly. And It is why no darwinite has challenged me on that point. A clear and sane look will quickly show that to be true.


236 posted on 08/03/2008 10:18:33 AM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
That’s not the issue. Surely you’d agree that if there is a right and wrong, that people are able to choose wrong.

Yes, but it is your contention that right and wrong are derived empirically. So where is the perfect "eye"?

You see covetousness advertised and performed everyday and multiple times on our media. I'm sure you can surmise the same for fornication. Again, it is not my viewpoint that requires justification or proof, empirically we should determine right from wrong and somehow differentiate the two in your view. That does not seem to be happening.

The founders of our nation realized the dilemma. That is why our forefathers mentioned the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. The rights we have are out of reach of any form of government. If government can decide what rights we have, we have no rights.(rights obviously are based upon right and wrong and lawgiver as you originally mentioned. Evidently, you intuitively understand, but reject the law-giver.)

237 posted on 08/03/2008 2:32:54 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
The microevolution/ macroevolution dichotomy is a creationist talking point. There is every reason to believe that evolution is a continuum driven by natural selection.

Nice use of the word "Believe" there. See that's different then know :-)

As to micro/macro being just a talking point, here's the problem: Growing up on the farm I well witnessed microevolution. But I have not witnessed macroevolution. So the problem is that no matter how hard you try to use the seen as evidence of the unseen, there are two kinds of evolution - that which I have seen and that which I have not seen. So it is not straight forward to say that there's no difference and it is perfectly justified for me to address the two different realms differently.

The average IQ is 100 (by definition). Most people are too dumb to understand or care about science. You and I have a different concept of faith.

What's your point about people being dumb? For your information, I don't even have an IQ. At least its never been tested. And if an IQ is the results of taking the test, then I really don't have an IQ. Anyway, the fact that most people don't care about the specifics of science doesn't change the fact as to whether they take it by faith.

So when somebody believes something with all their heart and lives their life according to it, and yet cannot prove or demonstrate the truth of their believe, what do you call it if it is not faith?

Anything that evolution does can be and often is attributed to a designer. Unfortunately, no one has ever produced any evidence of a designer.

Maybe it's the other way: Maybe the evidence IS for a designer, but can often be attributed to evolution?

If they had every scientist would be an ID proponent.

Well that's just not true. There are lots of scientists who are ID proponents (a definite minority) but my point is that not ALL scientists are correct on this issue. If the ID'ers are right, then the ASBE'ers are wrong. And if the ASBE'ers are right, then the ID'ers are wrong - so it's just not true to say that all scientists will agree. Of course I'm talking with someone who says it's okay to say little lies in order to keep things moving nicely. I have here a book titled "In 6 days: why 50 [Ph.D] Scientists choose to believe in Creation" -- and herein I am not arguing for the correctness of their positions (although I think they are correct) but I'm making the point that somebody's wrong here, and not all scientists agree.

Design is a discipline. God's design has earmarks. A perfect designer would not have to make the complicated half-assed biological compromises we see in nature. A perfect design is always elegantly simple with no wasted steps.

You're assuming that you know what God's goal was. You have no evidence that he would have done it differently had he indeed done it.

The study of genomes shows lots of mistakes, steps forward and back. They show trial and error type of evolution exactly as predicted by Darwin.

If you're talking about the kind of evolution that I've seen, then we have no beef here. No pun intended, I don't question the existence of the bovine. As a child we had a cow and a horse and we'd bridle and saddle them up and go clop clop down the street. You should have seen the looks on people's faces when they drove by and saw a horse and a cow. But I digress.

In any case, again you're assuming that God wouldn't have done it that way - an assumption that you cannot substantiate.

It is true and you can apply the same formula to all of the ten commandments. Even in the muzzie countries murder is against the law.

Killing christians isn't against the law. Matter of fact it was in the news not long ago about a muslim man who converted to Christianity in some muzzie country, and they were going to hang him, in a court of law!

Cultural laws always have exceptions. Most Christian conservatives are for the death penalty for example.

see now you're completely twisting the issue here. We were talking about murdering the innocent - not just due punishment!

But what would I expect from somebody who says it's okay to lie sometimes.

-Jesse
238 posted on 08/03/2008 4:46:42 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I still think your position boils down to one which insists that someone, in this case God, must tell us what is right and what is wrong, and that without that instruction we are unable to discern it by ourselves.

I have no doubt that makes it easier, but I guess the question becomes whether right and wrong would exist at all if God didn't define it for us. I think it does, because it isn't some arbitrary dictate; it's a whole set of principles which are consistent.

I don't think it comes down to a situation where a deity says this is right and this is wrong and if you don't agree with me, I'll fry your butt in hell.

There is precious little in the Ten Commandments that we couldn't have figured out for ourselves as the best course of conduct. Perhaps the Sabbath and the admonition against graven images wouldn't have been intuitive, but I think everything else regarding conduct is.

But I could be wrong.

I think history and even current events might demonstrate that you're wrong. Civilizations are clashing all over the world. In some countries they live on cows and others they worship them. They don't (even after all this time) seem to come to any sort of agreement.

In any case, I've been repeatedly referring specifically to universal right and wrong, but you have heretofore refused to address the issue as far as I can tell.

Societies well may be able to arrive at rules for themselves, but history shows that different societies will arrive at different rules. Something that is wrong in one society may be celebrated in another. And if one society says something is wrong and another says it is right, which is it? They both aren't correct! There really is no such thing as right or wrong anymore, except to the degree of might makes right. In order for right and wrong to exist beyond might makes right, then universal right and wrong must exist, and in order for universal right and wrong to exist, a supreme moral lawgiver must exist. I am not herein arguing for the existence of a supreme moral lawgiver (although I do believe He is God and God exists) but my point is that logically right and wrong (beyond might by right) ultimately requires a supreme moral lawgiver.

I guess a supreme lawgiver is sort of a might makes right - it's just that the mighty in this case would be God.

Thanks,

-Jesse
239 posted on 08/03/2008 4:58:44 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Agreed, the very liberal and coercive Public School system is the greatest prize for liberal indoctrination of all sorts.

Thus they would rather destroy the country than give freedom to parents through complete privatization of schools.

This is why the most fanatical evolutionists support the Huge Government Public School liberals with such devotion.

240 posted on 08/03/2008 5:43:16 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-260 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson