Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
I heard today (11/9) that in Kansas the state board of education approved a change in the way evolution and intelligent design are taught in schools. The board recommended that teachers bring up the "considerable scientific and public controversy" surrounding the origin of life and evolution. Do you think this will place more emphasis on religion in schools or will it just improve the study of science? If it does place more emphasis on religion, is that beneficial or harmful for the students?
posted by Michelle S @ 10:05 PM
30 Comments:
I believe that it is a good way to present both sides of the argument and believe it to be incredibly logical. It's very scary how far our society has come since the Scopes Trial. Now evolution is the rule and creation is the exception.
I think to bring up "controversy" surrounding anything defeats the point of learning. Instead of teaching how a subject is controversial, why not just present the information and let the students decide whether they want to believe it or not?
But they teach the material just like fact and don't really give students a chance to form any other opinions.
I don't think the intent of teaching evolution is to change the opinions of the students. I think it's just to present information so that students can form their own views on the subject.
Maybe they don't intend to change the students' opinions, but the fact is that they do. They just present the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, also. They don't give any argument against it. If you tell someone something without giving another view, how can you expect them to hold another one?
I understand that only evolution is presented in school and that it tends to lean toward one side, but the fact is, school is not the only place we get information. We are not at school 24/7 (although sometimes it seems like it) and we form opinions based on everything in our lives, not just what we learn in school.
That's true, but in our generation, most people who are around us were impacted by their high school biology experience, and they've been teaching evolution in school for years. Not many people get a different view from their parents. Religious leaders could be different, but not all are. And many teens wouldn't go to their leader about that anyway. Yes, they get it from other sources, but it still isn't right for them to impact students with only one view. It's only a theory, after all.
Isn't that what religious leaders are for? To help you understand the world better? And aren't we going to hear about the issue from our friends, from the news, and from television? Also, the teachers aren't scientific robots. Evolution is in their curriculum, but they can believe in other theories too. They aren't teaching that evolution is the only way. They're only teaching what the theory is.
As for evolution only being a theory...I honestly don't know. Evolution has a lot of physical evidence to back it up, but on the other hand, it can't answer some questions that the creationist theories can. I don't get it--why can't both of them be right, or at least partly right?
It doesn't necessarily have a whole lot of physical evidence to back it up, actually. If there were that many stages of change between all the different ancestors and current species, then there would be a whole lot more fossilized evidence of those intermediates. But the truth is that there aren't. There are only a few that claim to be the intermediates. Plus, they can't support any theory on how the earth began. Forgive me if I sound VERY defensive and pushy, it's just that I feel passionately about it. About the teachers...you're right, the teachers can believe what they'd like. But if they only teach evolution, aren't they, in essence, teaching that it's the only way? A majority of the scientific community believes in the evolution theory, however, Darwin even wrote in the Origin of Species that the fossil record was the most discouraging evidence against his theory.
I understand your defensive position, because I feel rather strongly about it too, just on the other end. My argument is that fossil evidence isn't the only thing evolution is based on. It's also based on things like natural selection and survival of the fittest, which can be seen if you look at population charts and such. Evolution isn't just how humans came to be and how the world began. There may not be a lot of evidence, but I haven't yet seen evidence to support the creationist theory. And the teachers again...if a history teacher teaches that it was inevitable that WWII happened, does that mean that's the only way to think about the beginnings of WWII? A science teacher's word is not law (although sometimes it does seem that way).
Yes, evolution isn't only based on fossils. First, though, how do you define evolution? A lot depends on an exact definition. Do you just define it as change or something more specific?
Also, the difference is that science is mostly hypothesizing and revising hypotheses. History is fact and basically indisputable.
But history can be hypothesized on just like science can be. There are many different ways to interpret history, too. Also, isn't science part of history? Isn't history part of science? If you look at each subject as a whole, is it possible to truly separate one from the other, just like math and science are interconnected?
Maybe you can hypothesize in either about intentions or things which aren't documented and proven. However, I think we could both be right. You didn't answer my question. How do you define evolution?
I define evolution as a process of changes that an organism or a group of organisms experience over a period of time.
Does it include the changing of species?
Since a species is a specific group of organisms, yes, that includes changes in species.
Does that include everything originating from one ancester?
Well, everything had to start somewhere. I don't think all species on the planet originated from a single common ancestor, but I believe that some species derived from some common ancestors.
Hi! I didn't read what either of you wrote but I just wanted to put another person into this blog! Just a different name, now continue with your deep conversation (or so I'm guessing...)
That was a pretty sweet reason for getting your comment on. Who knows, maybe some day this blog will be famous and you'll have your name in a newspaper or something. Actually, I don't even know who you are. Michelle, you must introduce me to Lindsay S. at some point.
Michelle, why don't you believe that everything came from one common ancestor and why do you believe that there were some common ancestors?
Thanks, Lindsay, and Lauren, I can introduce you to her.
I believe that at the very, very beginning, there were materials that formed into individual cells, then one cell became two, and two became many more, which began multicellular life. Not quite that fast, but in that order. I think different lines of organisms evolved from different cell lines, because I can't imagine what kind of thing would evolve every living thing in the world--it's just too much!
Lauren, you do to know me! Your in my history class, my ICA class and you go to my church (that is if this is the same lauren...)
I'm out of it today. I think that I'm losing my mind. Sorry Lindsay, I definitely did not recognize your name for some reason. Maybe I'm getting old.
Michelle, first, if you believe that we all came from a single cell, then wouldn't that be a common ancestor? Also, you didn't answer my question. WHY do you believe that we (the human species) came from a single cell?
You made a very good point, Lauren, so I have to correct myself. I don't believe every living thing evolved from the same cell billions of years ago. I believe there were several different cells that evolved into different cell lines and therefore, into different branches of organisms. I believe humans have evolved from a single cell because it's very logical. After all, we start as a single cell at the beginning of life, so why not at the beginning of the species?
Did God put the first few cells there in the first place?
Well, cells were formed over time from certain elements and conditions, but I think G-d provided the "spark" needed to start life.
Why would he do that?
I'm a little confused as to where this discussion is going. What is your point?
I'm just talking it out with you. I want to know what your views are and I want you to know where I stand. I know what you mean, though. It's really hard to have a discussion through a blog because the answers are so slow. Maybe we better drop the topic.
Post a Comment
<< Home