Do you think that the evolution theory should be taught as an unassailble fact, or as just a theory of life.?
338160
It's very stupid to think of evolution to happen over night. And it is stupid to think that ape could evolve into human again just because it did long time ago. Ape didn't evolve into human. Human evolved from something similar to apes. Apes today evolved from something else. The environment and everything affect how something mutate over time. there is nothing inherent about an ape must change into a human. so, it's very stupid.\n\nAny scientific theory is not TRUE. They r just not proved wrong. Nobody can prove a theory to be right. As long as reasonable examinations don't dispute it, it is used as an acceptable model of real life. Until it is proved wrong, or incomplete. I believe all theories should be taught this way, not just evolution. To keep the mind open to accepting new knowledge as it comes along.
503157
Evolution is by no means a one road definition.  That is, not even those who study it completely understand it.  I think, however, it may be unwise to think of evolution as having a "purpose".  Evolution is a process, with definite outcomes, but saying it has a purpose almost implies it is a living thing.\n\nI believe you may mean that in order to evolve, then beings must die.  As it stands right now, this is absolutely correct.  That is to say, in order for a species as a whole to change, mutations must happen, and then be passed on to further generations, and then become selected for.  If this in fact happens, then the those with the old traits will be selected against, and hence may die.  This is not because they are supposed to die, but because there is now something out there which better fits a niche and will compete for it.\n\nAs for the idea of eternal life, as it stands right now, it is completely unknown, and almost unfathomable.  One of the reasons for this is because the niches we live in are continually changing.  If organisms did not change as a species to fit them, then they would die out completely.  As long as the environment changes, one way or another, life will change to fit it as best it can.\n\nThis is not to say, however, that the idea of immortality is impossible to fathom.  There is nothing in evolution that touch on anything spiritual, including what humans call the soul.  These things are inherently seperated from evolution because of the fact that you can completely describe evolutions effects without considering it.  However, if you choose to believe in a soul, then I see no reason why it couldn't be a possibility.  But evolution does not encourage it.  I'm sorry.
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.
615396
creation or evolution?
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
1091714
Darwin ,if he knew what has evolved from his studies on birds and of His publication Origin of species(Bird studies)Being he was a  religious person and well versed in the Bible Creation account, He would turn over his grave.\nA theory is a theory = just a hunch , it does not means it represents reality. Experiment and evidence can be misinterpreted just as well as lawyers and judge do in a Court case.\nPresent day Evolution theory has been forced by court decision to be taught in school as a Science. Now the poor boys in school who are very logical ,still are not able to make sense out of it. The result they are pushed to learn a flawed theory,and they are getting bored to death.\nI wonder if we are wasting our school tax money?
674352
Creation... Evolution is said to be based on logic but even the smartest professors in whatever it is that they do admit that evolution has never been proven... The whole Big Bang thing... If it were true where did that little molecule com from??? Get real people... God created everything...
231135
People have trouble accepting evolution for the same reason they had trouble accepting that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. The funniest thing is when people claim that creationism has been proven or is fact. It's a fact just like it is a fact that the world is flat. It looks that way so it must be true. Since we can't see evolution it must not exist. I also find it amusing that people think that it makes more sense that women were created from a man's rib than that we are the result of evolution.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site:  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited:  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to c
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."
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
1014228
Sometimes the line between evolution and christianity is blurred. Evolution is not just the theory that we came from apes. Evolution is just the theory that all creatures can evolve over time its like is a bear is mainly living in one environment and then moves to another that is evolution. The theory that man came from apes should not be taught nor the theory that man was made by God. That way nobody is offended. But Evolution should be taught.
255424
Alright I will jump into this. Bombs Away! I know some hot heads will respond but I live in a country where free speech is a given right.\nSo here I go.\nEvolution in and of itself has never been proven. Do the research for yourself. The faith that it takes to believe all of the scattered pieces of science ( which by the way changes daily) fit into one theory is enormous. There are people who wholeheartedly believe that science makes everything factual. It doesn't. Science is like a river, constantly changing even with the basic elements in tact.\nSo for it to be taught as a fact is wrong,wrong,wrong. \nYes,evolution should be tought, but as a scientific theory, and not the final word for all mankind.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
528044
It does not matter what I believe. The theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by fact and argument. Intelligent Design is not supported by any facts that I know of and the argument seems to be basically, " a argument from ignorance ".
1031230
Errr, not really.\n\nYou must also understand that evolution in no way says anything about the origins of life.  That's a whole other subject ;).
419504
I think you mean evolution?\nI don't think scientists hide facts.  Scientists are paid to publish their findings.  Hiding facts or data would not be to their personal benefit.  Evolution is a scientific theory so yes it is "scientific".  It is a theory just like the atomic theory...you know, the one that is the basis for all modern chemistry.  In my opinion evolution is to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry.  Maybe that isn't the best analogy, but my point is that acceptance of evolution as a mechanism of organismal change, and that organisms have evolved from common ancestors is a fundemental idea underlying numerous aspects of molecular biology and medical genetics.