Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Sci_Girl]

I believe if you attend a science class expect to be presented with evolution material and how evolution can occur. As well, if you attend a highly religious school where they believe the Earth is just a few thousand years old then be prepared to hate upon evolution. I personally have a major bias towards evolution because I have chosen to believe in the field of science, but if someone wants to still believe that it does not exist then so be it.

[Wolf]

Pesonaly its a theory its not proven yet so I really dont think so

[Rain]

They teach religion at school, I don't see why they don't teach Evolution.
In fact, some people say evolution supports religious theories.

In any case, it doesn't matter if they believe it or not, it seems like a general knowledge that should be known.
It's ignorance or knowledge.

[trix]

[QUOTE=thequeen;131469]

Zero that's why it's called Darwin's Theory of Evolution. No science in schools (at least not the schools I have attended) is taught as pure fact. [COLOR="Silver"]

Hey you know what else is a theory? gravity. No really, look it up. We don't know what it is, we only know what it does. Yet you don't see people jumping pf buildings to test the theory of gravity and to discover where it comes from.

Evolution should be taught for the fact that it is. Basically, what Hexx said.

Gravity is still taught as a theory, at least where I live. Physicists are smart enough to know that despite their best assumptions, much of what they think they know could be wrong. Take for instance the neutrino travelling faster than the speed of light recently; although it was probably due to some calculation error somewhere along the line, physicists were excited because there might be a chance to discover something completely new.

You'll have to forgive me but I don't really understand how the analogy of people not jumping off buildings relates back to the theory of evolution (and in fact, no people don't jump off buildings to test it but gravity is tested in a plethora of other ways)

Although I myself believe in evolution 10000% I don't think it should be taught as solid fact because it's not. Teachers need to make clear, and most do, that it is still conjecture (albeit conjecture based upon very convincing evidence)

[Hexx]

I don't think either has it's place in the classroom. The exception to that is college.
I don't believe it has it's place however, in elementary, middle or high school.
Because if it is, then students will be forced to test on it, and some people might not agree.

So you're saying that kids should be kept entirely ignorant rather than be taught theories? Surely the reputation of educational systems such as in America are bad enough already without teaching kids even fewer things. As for suggesting that these things should be taught entirely by parents, there is a reason why the teaching profession exists. Teachers are employed for their expertise in both teaching methods in general and for their specialist knowledge on their chosen subjects, parents can not be expected to be able to provide an objective or even adequate quality teaching experience for their children because most are either incapable or unwilling to do that.

[Sneakz]

So you're saying that kids should be kept entirely ignorant rather than be taught theories? Surely the reputation of educational systems such as in America are bad enough already without teaching kids even fewer things. As for suggesting that these things should be taught entirely by parents, there is a reason why the teaching profession exists. Teachers are employed for their expertise in both teaching methods in general and for their specialist knowledge on their chosen subjects, parents can not be expected to be able to provide an objective or even adequate quality teaching experience for their children because most are either incapable or unwilling to do that.

Couldn't agree more with Hexx. If it were left up to the parents to teach evolution, the children would get tons of misinformation (unless the parents are biologists.) Most ignorant parents would probably just tell their kids "humans descended from monkeys!" which is not only a disgusting oversimplification of evolution, but also inaccurate.

[I_royalty_I]

So you're saying that kids should be kept entirely ignorant rather than be taught theories? Surely the reputation of educational systems such as in America are bad enough already without teaching kids even fewer things. As for suggesting that these things should be taught entirely by parents, there is a reason why the teaching profession exists. Teachers are employed for their expertise in both teaching methods in general and for their specialist knowledge on their chosen subjects, parents can not be expected to be able to provide an objective or even adequate quality teaching experience for their children because most are either incapable or unwilling to do that.

I don't see any problem with school systems in America.
It's just the kids who don't give a shit that mess things up for the rest of us

I'm just saying let the kids draw their own conclusions.
Neither one is 100% solid fact really.
If you wanna teach one, then teach both is what I'm saying. If you don't wanna teach both, then don't teach either.


And that's a very broad statement.
You don't have to be an expert to teach your kid about evolution.
You can take them to church and raise them with religion, but open their eyes to the scientific aspect as well.
Most parents that I know would be fairly capable of doing this without a problem.

[Sneakz]

I don't see any problem with school systems in America.
It's just the kids who don't give a shit that mess things up for the rest of us

I'm just saying let the kids draw their own conclusions.
Neither one is 100% solid fact really.
If you wanna teach one, then teach both is what I'm saying. If you don't wanna teach both, then don't teach either.


And that's a very broad statement.
You don't have to be an expert to teach your kid about evolution.
You can take them to church and raise them with religion, but open their eyes to the scientific aspect as well.
Most parents that I know would be fairly capable of doing this without a problem.

But the thing is, they don't both belong in a science classroom. One is science, and one is not. So why would we teach both? Science is a method of testing hypotheses and ruling out the ones that are disproven, and pursuing those that are plausible and have evidence to support them. Creationism has absolutely no scientific roots and thus should not be taught in a science classroom. It's fine for a theology class, sure. But something that is supernatural, not observable, and not testable, is simply not science.
I 100% agree with children deciding on their own what they believe in, but I feel that the educational system is where they should be given the foundation for what current scientific knowledge is being explored today. I'm not saying they should have evolution shoved down their throats the same way religion often is, but they should definitely at least be taught that the idea exists and that it is a well-supported theory.

[thequeen]

@(you need an account to see links)
I started writing a counterargument to what you just said, then realized how I could be more succinct and decided to go with this: regardless of whether gravity is a theory or not, it exists. But screw gravity, forget I mentioned it. Evolution is a fact. I don't know what keeps people from dropping the "theory" part of it. The evidence is too overwhelming. But then again, there is overwhelming evidence as to how there are no gods or deities that exist, but people continue to make religions worshipping them anyway (and it's funny, because for that matter, even though there is a blatant lack of evidence, the existence of a "god" is a fact and not a theory to them). But I digress again (and I think I might have started another pointless argument with people I offended ).
I'll end with a quote from a great man:
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it" -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

PS: I am not trying to come of as brash or attack your opinion, I just firmly, and passionately stand behind mine. But it's good you at least believe in evolution


Sources: (you need an account to see links)

[Hexx]

@(you need an account to see links)
I started writing a counterargument to what you just said, then realized how I could be more succinct and decided to go with this: regardless of whether gravity is a theory or not, it exists. But screw gravity, forget I mentioned it. Evolution is a fact. I don't know what keeps people from dropping the "theory" part of it. The evidence is too overwhelming. But then again, there is overwhelming evidence as to how there are no gods or deities that exist, but people continue to make religions worshipping them anyway (and it's funny, because for that matter, even though there is a blatant lack of evidence, the existence of a "god" is a fact and not a theory to them). But I digress again (and I think I might have started another pointless argument with people I offended ).
I'll end with a quote from a great man:
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it" -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

PS: I am not trying to come of as brash or attack your opinion, I just firmly, and passionately stand behind mine. But it's good you at least believe in evolution


Sources: (you need an account to see links)

Science defines a theory as something different to what is used in general conversation, in science something can be both a theory and a fact (a theory in science isn't simply an unproven fact, it's more the idea used to explain facts). For that reason evolution, like gravity, will always be a theory but it doesn't mean it's any less a fact.