Should evolution be taught in schools?

[trix]

@(you need an account to see links) Yes it does! There is a clear and very important difference between theories and facts. Facts are things you cannot refute i.e. that if you drop an apple it will fall to the ground (sorry to go back to gravity once more). You cannot change the fact that the apple will fall no matter how many times you drop it, so it is a fact. However the explanation as to what makes that apple fall cannot be proven so it can't be a fact. It can be taught as a fact (as I suppose it should be, until a new and better theory comes along) but that doesn't mean it's true. You can't prove that gravity is the force that makes apples fall as oppose to something else.

@(you need an account to see links) "There is overwhelming evidence as to how there are no gods or deities that exist" I'd very much like to see this evidence.

I still disagree that evolution is a fact. It's a theory but I believe it should be taught in schools due to the evidence behind it, but I don't think we should shove it down children's throats as the absolute truth and that nothing else is right. What good does that teach them? Children need to know that not everything they learn in science class is true, or 100% accurate especially as a lot of it is dumbed down for younger pupils.

[Hexx]

@(you need an account to see links) Yes it does! There is a clear and very important difference between theories and facts. Facts are things you cannot refute i.e. that if you drop an apple it will fall to the ground (sorry to go back to gravity once more). You cannot change the fact that the apple will fall no matter how many times you drop it, so it is a fact. However the explanation as to what makes that apple fall cannot be proven so it can't be a fact. It can be taught as a fact (as I suppose it should be, until a new and better theory comes along) but that doesn't mean it's true. You can't prove that gravity is the force that makes apples fall as oppose to something else.

As I already stated, the scientific definition of a theory is different to the definition of theory in general parlance. The same applies to the 'facts'. Using your apple example, you might consider it a fact that an apple will fall no matter how many times you drop it but scientifically speaking you can't rule out the possibility of one day the apple not falling. It might be an extremely minuscule possibility but since we don't know everything about gravity we can't rule it out scientifically. Therefore, you consider it to be an absolute certainty but science can only consider it to be confirmed in the sense that the probability of it not happening is so small that there's not much point mentioning it.

[Icy]

It would depend on the aspects of evolution your teaching.

[Slasher]

I believe in science and I think that proofs of the evolution should be taught. This theory is the most evident we have to explain from what we come from on earth. It's understanding how we've managed to become what we are.
Religion should be taught by the parents, because not every children are practicing it the same way.

[Sneakz]

@(you need an account to see links) "There is overwhelming evidence as to how there are no gods or deities that exist" I'd very much like to see this evidence.

The point is not that there is tons of evidence that proves there are no gods or deities, it's the overwhelming LACK of evidence that they DO exist. In science, the person who is making the claim (i.e. There is a God) holds the burden of proof. It is not up to everyone else to find proof that God DOESN'T exist, it is up to the person making the claim to prove He DOES. Just like if I were to say "I think that fairies exist" the burden of proof would be on me to provide proof for my claim. It wouldn't be up to the scientific community to run around trying to prove that fairies DON'T exist.

[trix]

The point is not that there is tons of evidence that proves there are no gods or deities, it's the overwhelming LACK of evidence that they DO exist. In science, the person who is making the claim (i.e. There is a God) holds the burden of proof. It is not up to everyone else to find proof that God DOESN'T exist, it is up to the person making the claim to prove He DOES. Just like if I were to say "I think that fairies exist" the burden of proof would be on me to provide proof for my claim. It wouldn't be up to the scientific community to run around trying to prove that fairies DON'T exist.

No I agree with you I'm just saying I don't think there is, as thequeen stated, an overwhelming amount of proof that there ISN'T a god or deity.

[Hexx]

No I agree with you I'm just saying I don't think there is, as thequeen stated, an overwhelming amount of proof that there ISN'T a god or deity.

How exactly would one prove that something doesn't exist?

[Sci_Girl]

Just throwing this out there. Scientific theory is based on the collection of hypotheses that have been tested overtime. The hypothesis itself is based on observation and experimentation. If a group of hypotheses lead to a generalized group of evidence, the "facts", then the theory or set of principles is developed for an explanation of those derived facts hence the theory becomes a description of the facts.

The Law of Gravity is a law, it is a scientific set of rules for predicted behavior in a certain circumstance. It is close to a theory but the difference is in the application, theory does not involve the behavior of something it just gives a fancy explanation for why it happens. ex. You can throw a ball into the air and know it will come down (the behavior) because you know that gravity is at work-predicted rule...it does not explain why because it is a law but it is an accepted fact of behavior.

How exactly would one prove that something doesn't exist?

You ask for proof to disprove the nonexistence. ex. someone says they know unicorns exist, I say they do not, in order to disprove me they would need to provide the unicorn to prove that it does exist, if they cannot do that then I am led to believe it does not exist. It can get messy with what is being proven or disproven but the general idea is that you need to provide good evidence to show that something does exist.

[Hexx]

You ask for proof to disprove the nonexistence. ex. someone says they know unicorns exist, I say they do not, in order to disprove me they would need to provide the unicorn to prove that it does exist, if they cannot do that then I am led to believe it does not exist. It can get messy with what is being proven or disproven but the general idea is that you need to provide good evidence to show that something does exist.

No, that's just asking somebody else to prove that it exists (we're talking about where the burden of proof lies). The existence of a god is unfalsifiable by its very nature.

[Sneakz]

No, that's just asking somebody else to prove that it exists (we're talking about where the burden of proof lies). The existence of a god is unfalsifiable by its very nature.

Exactly. Which is another good reason why religion should be left OUT of the classroom. It simply is not science because it is not falsifiable or testable or even questionable. It is something that believers claim "just is." For that reason, anything supernatural really is outside of science and should not be taught on an equal level as a legitimate scientific theory such as evolution.