Should evolution be taught in schools?

guess he loves me more.

Jedi? FSM?

Just as scienifically valid as any other.

why do you keep mixing science and religion?

I'm not a cartesian dualist from a rational point of view....it's inconcievable that something can occur with a physical basis.

Science encompasses religion.

Either way, enjoy your sandwich

you often accuse us of a lack of understanding of religion but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of scientific enquiry.
Science can only offer the best explanation of anything based on the available facts. These facts are the result of observations which are then translated into theories which are then tested by experiment. At every stage of this process they are subject to modification.
When teaching children in schools this set of principles should be at the basis of all teaching. Things should be demonstrated as the result of repeatable experiments where possible. Where not the experiments that led to the theory should be spoken about. Nothing should be stated as coming from an uncontestable authority.
however. If you wish to oppose a widely held theory you should expect to be challenged and to have to offer convincing evidence that what you say is true.
when we get to the origin of the universe it is not possible to conduct repeatable experiments. so to that extent all theories of the origin of the universe are just theories.
current scientific theories could be completely wrong, it's just that on the balance of probabilities they are right as far as they fit the known facts.
total proof of anything is impossible. Children should be made aware of that as soon as they are able to understand it.

It is not just the origin of the universe though, its pretty much every aspect of evolution with the exception of micro.

I have no problem with evolution being taught as a theory which could be wrong... but this is not how it is taught.

define 'theory'

and not a lot of people know that... but it's a fact. It's virtually impossible to prove any scientific theory, and virtually all scientific "knowledge" is theory... but repeated observations that support the theory reinforce it to the point that it's accepted as "fact", but it only takes 1 valid observation or experiment that doesn't agree with the theory to destroy it

But there is loads of support for the theory of evolution and none at all for creationism... and the argument that life is so complex and perfect that it must have been created is bollocks... it just demonstrates our lack of understanding

.... but I have always had trouble working out how snakes can evolve venom production sacs at the same time as venom delivery fangs, because 1 without the other is pointless

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should evolution be taught in schools?

So, Joe do you not consider yourself to be a creationist then?
You've said in your first post that creationists accept microevolution, but then you've said this .....

Eyes are the bit I don't get. How can an eye just evolve? What made the body decide to stick an extension of its most delicate organ outside?

cos photosensitivity's very common... even plants turn to face the sun... and it's easy to demonstrate how being able to detect lights gives an advantage, so evolution says that detecting light better gives you more advantage

The skin is photosensitive and could can detect light no?

could snakes evolve from other lizards with sharp teeth for eating? maybe lizards with strong saliva?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should evolution be taught in schools?

I'm a creationist, but not a 6 day new world creationist.

I believe in evolution, billion year old universe and a creator.

darwins theory of natural selection goes right back to the origins of life, where as microevolution is the natural selection within a species

OR bats HAVE eyes - but are blind? whats up with that shit?

maybe they're in the PROCESS Of evolving to a different/better animal with no eyes at all.... nothing is a finished product. there never will be. however, apparently humans ARE perfect and at the top of evolution

my arse.

here's a good one for you.

how does the apple tree know that monkeys like the taste apples? how does the apple tree know that if it produces an apple a monkey will eat it? how does the apple tree know that the monkey will digest the apple and eject the bad stuff from its anus? How does the apple tree know that the soft flesh of the fruit will digest but if it makes a hardcase round the seed that wont?

conclusion... apple trees are pure genius

theyre not blind...

my mum grew an apple tree from a pip.... she never poo'd it out :spangled:

apples rot when not on the tree - a natural fertilizer for the seed inside - it wasn't DESIGNED for us.


now there's arogance

apples trees cant grow in close proximity stupid.

they need the monkeys.

well, they don't use their sight much, so it's redundant. in 40,000 generations - they might not have them any more.