Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools

[surada]

All science is dealt with the same way, not just natural science. Science text books are submitted to the appropriate education facilities who do the research on their authenticity and agreement among the entire scientific community. If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation.

>>If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation. <<

That is interesting. Which evolution theory do they use? Can you provide a few examples?

No, teaching creation science that was accredited in the past has been replaced by evolution. They replaced the truth for a lie. Anyway, I accepted that and have gotten the wheels rolling to see if it will be taught in schools as religion.

What a particular number of Americans believe , doesn’t make it true.

So is taking a poll of atheist scientists and claiming consensus. It wasn't like that in the past (both sides were involved before ToE). They exchanged the truth for a lie.

This isnt a science class, this is a discussion. Do the research yourself to answer your questions. . Behavioral science says, that will be more meaningful to you.
Atheism discussion is just a diversion. Catholics believe in science and evolution and the also use the Bible in their own community. Many other religions are not science deniers or non users of evolution. So, throwing atheism in there is invalid. Unless you refuse to use any product developed by science, it doesn’t make sense to me to talk about atheism or any religious reference while discussing science.

I visited a science museum in Saudi Arabia.. It had interactive stations about tectonic plates, the Eastward tilting of the peninsula, the rift that runs up the Red Sea to the Dead Sea, fossil water.. Really well done. At each station was a small brass plaque with a corresponding creation verse from the Koran. I was struck by the lack of conflict between science and religion. I wonder if we only have this conflict in the US with fundamentalists who take Genesis literally.

 

[Dagosa]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.

Why bother? there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact, so you should take a science course and learn about empirical methodologies before spamming threads with cult rubbish.

You’re 85 to 90 percent number must be a question. It’s no where near.
Really, I guess in the mind of deniers, I’m one of the gullible people who doesn’t believed in David Koresh type conspiracies and relies on the advice of real science institutes and not Religious fanatics when it comes to my health and well being. Sorry, I’m getting a covid shot developed by those dastardly theory of evolution principles rather then just, pray to god I don’t get sick and die. Call me old fashion for trusting educated people representing medical science over charlatans.

 

[DudleySmith]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.

Why bother? there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact, so you should take a science course and learn about empirical methodologies before spamming threads with cult rubbish.

You’re 85 to 90 percent number must be a question. It’s no where near.
Really, I guess in the mind of deniers, I’m one of the gullible people who doesn’t believed in David Koresh type conspiracies and relies on the advice of real science institutes and not Religious fanatics when it comes to my health and well being. Sorry, I’m getting a covid shot developed by those dastardly theory of evolution principles rather then just, pray to god I don’t get sick and die. Call me old fashion for trusting educated people representing medical science over charlatans.

What are you babbling about? What '85 to 90% number? lol Covid vaccines don't have squat to do with evolution; vaccines have been used since the 18th century in the U.S. They were based on trial and error empirical methodologies, not idiots who still don't understand what Darwin believed and have no clue as to what an empirical chain of evidence is.

 

[DudleySmith]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

 

[james bond]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

My comment was in the Present Tense, talking about what someone could do with what they have learned about Human Evolution.
It serves no purpose to argue about it ... It's not going to accomplish anything.

The only thing the argument provides, is the opportunity for people to look towards others in their attempts to validate their beliefs, and manage their own insecurities.

.

That's just a nonsensical comment after what was presented. Anyway, I hope you do well in hell . I'm sick of weirdos saying bad things about Christianity.

 

[Hollie]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

 

[james bond]

This isnt a science class, this is a discussion. Do the research yourself to answer your questions. . Behavioral science says, that will be more meaningful to you.
Atheism discussion is just a diversion. Catholics believe in science and evolution and the also use the Bible in their own community. Many other religions are not science deniers or non users of evolution. So, throwing atheism in there is invalid. Unless you refuse to use any product developed by science, it doesn’t make sense to me to talk about atheism or any religious reference while discussing science.

Haha. Okay, I'll just say you're babbling and won't answer my question.

Help me. Is anything in a Christian Bible backed up by science ? There is no evidence in the Bible itself.....
imo, the two don’t mix. science deals with “ earthly problem” solving. Religion deals with something that as yet, there is no evidence of. But we’re open to anything.

The scientific method backed up the chicken came before the egg. Dr. Louis Pasteur proved there is no abiogenesis (called spontaneous generation earlier). We have beauty and complexity in the universe or a kind of order. I just presented the complexity of the human eye and ear. The start of space and time can be explained by KCA. We have all the energy necessary in the universe with the the creation of light or the electromagnetic spectrum. We have the separation of day and night into two 12-hr periods or one 24-hr period. We have how animals and humans have two sexes. While the supernatural has infinity, the natural does not. Physics and its laws of thermodynamics show it is not possible (called potential infinity and actual infinity). Much, much, much more, but I'll stop here since you do not answer my questions. Ho hum.

 

[DudleySmith]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

lol yeah they're not as 'sophisticated' as handwaves such as 'punctuated equilibrium', AKA 'evolution by Jerks', and other loony excuses for zero evidence. Good points, if you're in an asylum trying to get extra pudding in the cafeteria.

 

[Hollie]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

My comment was in the Present Tense, talking about what someone could do with what they have learned about Human Evolution.
It serves no purpose to argue about it ... It's not going to accomplish anything.

The only thing the argument provides, is the opportunity for people to look towards others in their attempts to validate their beliefs, and manage their own insecurities.

.

That's just a nonsensical comment after what was presented. Anyway, I hope you do well in hell . I'm sick of weirdos saying bad things about Christianity.

Christianity isn't necessarily bad, it just tends to suffer terribly from Christians.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

 

[james bond]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

There are no intermediate stages. Stop believing in fairy tales.

 

[james bond]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

Your views are ridiculous. Ever heard of specialization? I'm a taxpayer. Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country. I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

Your views are ridiculous. Ever heard of specialization? I'm a taxpayer. Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country. I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.

I have kids in the school system and I find that the teachings are archaic and don't help very much in the real world sans maybe a foreign language they learn. How often do you use calculus or frog dissection knowledge. You can look up historical data on the Internet. Schools are good for teaching social skills, study habits, responsibility and such but to me the parents are responsible for 80% of knowledge a child receives. I am a father of two girls, 11 & 13. I am also a taxpayer. It is OK for us to disagree.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.

Why bother? there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact, so you should take a science course and learn about empirical methodologies before spamming threads with cult rubbish.

You’re 85 to 90 percent number must be a question. It’s no where near.
Really, I guess in the mind of deniers, I’m one of the gullible people who doesn’t believed in David Koresh type conspiracies and relies on the advice of real science institutes and not Religious fanatics when it comes to my health and well being. Sorry, I’m getting a covid shot developed by those dastardly theory of evolution principles rather then just, pray to god I don’t get sick and die. Call me old fashion for trusting educated people representing medical science over charlatans.

Will you get your shot before Rick Manning?

 

[surada]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

 

[Hollie]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

There are no intermediate stages. Stop believing in fairy tales.

Of course there are intermediate stages. Most biological organisms are in some form of intermediate stage of evolution. That is because external / environmental pressures change over time. That is why it is common for species to have imprecise defining characteristics because evolution is ongoing. Creationers want to define biology in terms of “kinds” that were supernaturally created. This implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of “kind” or species. Since there is not, ID’iot creationism, not evolutionary theory has a problem with a supportable argument.

 

[Hollie]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

lol yeah they're not as 'sophisticated' as handwaves such as 'punctuated equilibrium', AKA 'evolution by Jerks', and other loony excuses for zero evidence. Good points, if you're in an asylum trying to get extra pudding in the cafeteria.

Just guessing here, but I’m guessing your understanding of science is as ‘unsophisticated’ as most religious fundamentalists.

 

[james bond]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

Your views are ridiculous. Ever heard of specialization? I'm a taxpayer. Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country. I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.

I have kids in the school system and I find that the teachings are archaic and don't help very much in the real world sans maybe a foreign language they learn. How often do you use calculus or frog dissection knowledge. You can look up historical data on the Internet. Schools are good for teaching social skills, study habits, responsibility and such but to me the parents are responsible for 80% of knowledge a child receives. I am a father of two girls, 11 & 13. I am also a taxpayer. It is OK for us to disagree.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. I've used calculus here as well a few times in a past job. I never used frog dissection, but it's to become familiar with how animals work. I think some kids will be interested and could become a vet or biologist. One has to have some idea of history. Most kids don't have interest in it because they're young. It's more for older adults or those interested in it. I'm more interested in history from the Bible as well as websites. What education does is open the world to people. It gave me a good life and I retired early. My kids are grown now and are finishing up college. If they bring me a calculus problem, then I think I can help them with it, but will be rusty. We may see the same things, but think differently about it. That's the purpose of a higher education in my opinion. We learned how to sharpen our interests and how to think for oneself.

 

[james bond]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself.

There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism. There are no monkeys that are bipedal. I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee. I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

 

[surada]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself. There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism. There are no monkeys that are bipedal. I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee. I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You can find one of those new Christian private schools for your children. They are pretty inexpensive. They will teach creationism, fundamentalism and the Bible as History and Science.. with lots of Scofield and Hal Lindsey thrown in. I suppose you do have the right to keep them ignorant.