Why SHOULD Evolution be taught in school?
99207
I believe the current argument is regarding teaching Evolution (or creationism/ID) in Science Class, not in school. The reason to teach Evolution in Science Class would be that it's a scientifically based theory with testable and measurable components. Creationism/ID has no basis in Science and is simply an attempt to insert Religion into Science by force.\n\nAttempts have been made by various religious groups to disguise Creationism as Science, with poor results (see Dover PA Board of Education). More info can be found here:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
883650
Perhaps within the context of a discussion in a  psychology class, but otherwise, why on earth should that be in an academic curriculum?
49693
Well, I doubt many people want a full course on intelligent design. Rather, they are pushing for a brief (a few minutes) statement in bio classes along the lines of :\n\n"Not everyone agrees with evolution, and there are religious beliefs which conflict with it, as well as this intelligent design concept. Go read the Pandas and People book for more info if you want. Please don't sue us."
1034497
I don't think we need to.  I went to a Catholic grade school and high school.  We were taught both creation and evolution.  I don't see what the conflict is.\n\nThe thing to remember is that the first carnal sin is Pride.  I think we are pretty full of ourselves to assign our time scale to Gods six days of creation.  How do we know that those six days didn't last the 19 billion years that we think is the correct age of the universe.\n\nYou will find that most real scientists (chemists, geologist, biologists, physicists) find that the closer you look into the creation of the universe, the more you look at God.  \n\nIt is the "Social" scientists that have a problem with creation.  In their science, man is god, and if he isn't then boy are we screwed up.
499343
Evolution.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
204527
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nAnd, for those who say that evolution does not occur:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from
706932
Evolution is a science in which the principles are continuously questioned, tested, and revised as new information is acquired.  The fact that some religions such as Hinduism are more compatible with evolutionary theory does not make it a product of the religion.    Secular Humanism, if you even qualify it as a religion, has adopted it, but did not create it.  If a pastor felt that Newtonian physics should be taught alongside the Ten Commandments, it would not make it religious doctrine.  Evolution can be studied without any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God.\n\nIn summary, enough of your meaningless rhetoric.  Evolution belongs in schools, the Bible belongs in religious classes and parochial schools, and "Scientific" Creationism (but not Creationism) belongs in the trash.
1077534
No, because unlike those other things evolution is a myth.\n\nThe question I have is will the scientific community which embraces evolution be like the "scientific community" which embraced a flat world with four corners and the "scientific community" which embraced a earth centric universe. Remember, we don't have the documents of the thoughts of the common people from those long ago eras; we have the documents of their most "profound" thinkers. Today you are mocking them for their views.
357135
Evolution is a fact. People, plants, animals, weather, land masses and bodies of water all evolve. The word evolve means to develop or achieve gradually. However, the theory that evolution and the big bang are the origin of life is not a fact, only a theory. The beginning of life and matter is the one most significant and extraordinary event of all time, so how it happened is likely to be similarly extraordinary story. The Bible does not say "Thou shalt not evolve", nor does it say that "nothing ever develops and changes", in fact it calls us to evolve - spiritually, socially, and mentally. The Bible teaches us that there is only one thing that never changes - God. Why is it easier to believe that all of a sudden everything blew up and here we were - oops! No, things happen on purpose more often than they do by accident. Especially extraordinary things. They say that a bunch of monkeys could type the works of Shakepeare if given enough time... but wouldn't it be more efficient and infinitely quicker to let Shakepeare do it on purpose? And isn't one of the basic principles of nature efficiency? (i.e. the path of least resistance) So, no I don't think it's difficult to believe that an organized and developed being created an organized and developed universe. Also... as a Christian, I do not believe that we were created to assuage God's boredom. I believe we were created to love God - by our own free will rather than by force.
677423
It should be taught in schools as part of Ancient Greek civilisation. Other relgions should be taught as well according to the contribution to their cultures and civilisations.
846019
I have read Darwins original works on the subject. \nThe way it is taught in schools today is not what was written by the \nauthor. \nThe other authors you mention created works based on a theory that was never proven and which can nevr be proven. It is merely a theory written to explain the, for the most part, unexplainable.\nAs with almost everything else these days, the science is bad.\nIn your case, you are attempting to use unproved theories to \nprove an unproven theory. The science is bad.
509868
I never heard that story, it strikes me as contrived bollox anyway, but no, it makes no difference.   Anyone that thinks it matters is searching desperately for something to substantiate that anti-intellectual horror: creationism.  Science works because it outlasts every individual scientist, to be tested and refined again by the next generation of open minded clever people.  Evolution has, er, evolved quite a lot since Darwin's time, and many of the puzzles left by him have been solved.   If Newton had recanted, apples would still fall to the ground.
642511
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.
309307
No.\n\nReligion should be taught by families and in churches, temples, mosques, etc. \n\nWhile I would like my children to have strong morals, faith and belief, I also want my children to have as much knowledge as possible. \n\nIn public schools, a comparative religions class is perfect (and necessary, I believe). Everyone should have a firm and accurate understanding of other religions (what they blieve, some traditions, explanations, how they are different and most imporantly how they are similar). Telling children which is religion is best or right, however, is not acceptable. Parents and Guardians have the right to raise their children as they see fit, but children also have the right to choose the religion they believe is best for them.\n\nWhat should be taught in public schools are things like reading, writing, arithmetic, history, language, philosophy, and science. Children go to school to gain knowledge (including knowledge of religion, for exmaple, in a comparative religions class), not to gain faith. I won't trust others to teach faith (and one cannot truly teach faith) to my children, and I don't think most people should. Not in a public school anyway.
805297
We also teach molecular chemistry as science, even though no one can "see" a molecule.  We can indirectly observe their existence, and gather sufficent evidence to determine they must exist.  We teach Einstein's theory of relativity as science, even though we can't see an object moving at close to the speed of light.  We can't directly observe what happens, but we can infer it from a prepoderance of tangible evidence.  That is what science is all about.  The fact is that evolution is supported by far more scientific evidence than many other theories that are taught as science.\n\nNo, the fossil record is not complete.  Scientists are constantly finding new fossilized species.  If you have nothing even remotely intelligent to say, please, do us all a favor and say nothing at all.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is har
288021
yes.  not teaching evolution in the public schools would accomplish nothing except denying our youth a decent background in science and damaging our country's scientific standing in the world.  despite what a lot of people would like to think, science is not a matter of opinion, and evolution has a very strong scientific basis.  Ignoring facts do not change them, it only harms the person who ignores them.
677385
Creationist stories were written to explain what could no be explained by science, specifically, where we came from.  Science has since explained this with the theory of evolution.  Evolution is what really happened; creationism was simply created to fill the holes until we figured it out.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, bu