Evolution
- Thread starter Damniel
- Start date
toadsworthy
Tangsworthy
guess who was an evolutionary biology Teaching Assistant 
this guy
can't tell if Jake on page one is trolling or misinformed. Because I literally had people get in my face one time with that same argument, and I explained it five times and the guy still wouldn't budge. I also had someone tell me that she didn't believe it because it was ridiculous to think that if she went swimming every single day she would start to grow gills.....
this guycan't tell if Jake on page one is trolling or misinformed. Because I literally had people get in my face one time with that same argument, and I explained it five times and the guy still wouldn't budge. I also had someone tell me that she didn't believe it because it was ridiculous to think that if she went swimming every single day she would start to grow gills.....
Lackadaisy
Senior Member
Overall I agree with this approach, though I don't know what the "evidence" from the other side of the debate would even be.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that just calling it a theory is misleading. We have examples of actual, observable evolution from within our lifetimes even.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what a scientific theory actually is. It carries a very different meaning than what we commonly refer to as a "theory" - It's not just an idea or a guess - it's something that has been tested over and over again, to the point of being accepted as (scientific) knowledge.
Scientists have invested decades, lifetimes worth of thought and effort, into testing these theories. Personally, I find it unacceptable that someone would feel entitled to keep that knowledge out of schools simply by saying they just don't believe in it
Last edited:
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
yeah. i don't think you should say "this is 100% what hapened trust me dude" but evolution is both a fact and a theory. there is more than enough evidence that proves evolution.
a scientific theory is based on facts, a religious theory or any other theory doesn't have to be. a scientific theory holds more credibility than a theory based on just opinions or thoughts. of course you can't be 100% sure exactly what happened millions and billions years ago, but to present it as just a theory (especially if you present it as a theory that's equally Valid™ to religious theories) is misleading.
presenting the facts and the theory of evolution makes people think for themselves n b like Yeah That Sounds Reasonable. it's like if u switch a lightswitch and the light turns on,, there's a Pretty Strong probability that the switch was what turned the light on amd you can come to the conclusion that the lightswitch turned it on without someone telling you that that's how it happened. (obviously a lightswitch and evolution are not very compareable, what i mean is that the conclusion can be reached if you are presented the facts and the theory, and that isn't telling someone that it's 100% what happened because youre letting them form an opinion based on facts on their own.)
I believe that evolution should be taught in schools because it is a science. Religion, on the other hand, is not a science in itself. I am fine with classes that examine religions, not classes that try to say religion is 100% fact. You cannot prove religion and it is based on simply people believing what they "cannot see", as they say.
Lackadaisy
Senior Member
I'm not religious myself, but both went to a Catholic school and had several religious studies classes. I wish more people where I live now, in the US, would be confident in their own beliefs and not feel threatened by other belief systems or science. The classes I took in Germany covered all of the major world religions, yet none of my Christian friends or their families ever treated that as a problem :3
Even as an Atheist I can see value in teaching religion in school, as long as it isn't forced on anyone. It's shaped human history considerably and therefore deserves a place in education
Even as an Atheist I can see value in teaching religion in school, as long as it isn't forced on anyone. It's shaped human history considerably and therefore deserves a place in education
Last edited:
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
yes but it has no place in science
EpicGamer12
Senior Member
You realize schools teach more than just science classes, right? Learning about world religions would give a lot of people (particularly closed minded Christians, for example) a broader and more accepting world view. The thread isn't about whether or not religion has a place in science.
"Theory" and "idea that kinda makes sense but doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up" are two very different things. I mean, gravity is theory, but I don't see people using that as a reason not to teach it in schools. A lot of supportive evidence has been amassed over the last 150 years in favor of evolution. I can see why someone that misunderstands how it supposedly works could think that it's iffy at best, and something like that shouldn't be taught to kids as something that's absolute.
We see evidence of evolution all the time, though. White Europeans, for example, developed light skin over millions of years because after their ancestors migrated from Africa, their diet changed from being rich in vitamin D (from the plentiful animal products Africa had to offer) to a diet rich in grains and very low in vitamin D. In addition to having very little vitamin D in their diets, Europe had much less direct sunlight, meaning their skin absolutely had to lighten (after the deaths of millions, and after a few lucky individuals with genetic mutations survived and reproduced, of course) for them to survive in their new environment.
Africans, also, were very well adapted to their environment. Their diet was rich in vitamin D and their environment had very direct sunlight. They didn't need sunlight to synthesize vitamin D in their bodies since it was already present in the food they ate, and they needed as much melanin as possible to shield themselves from harmful UV radiation. Native Australians (Aboriginals), developed even darker skin than Africans because they lived under the natural Antarctic hole in the ozone layer, meaning not only were they susceptible to UVA and UVB radiation, but also to UVC radiation, which is the most harmful by far.
There's a million other cases of physical traits like these developing not just in humans, but in practically every other living thing on earth to allow them to survive where they live. So yes, I think it should be taught in schools.
We see evidence of evolution all the time, though. White Europeans, for example, developed light skin over millions of years because after their ancestors migrated from Africa, their diet changed from being rich in vitamin D (from the plentiful animal products Africa had to offer) to a diet rich in grains and very low in vitamin D. In addition to having very little vitamin D in their diets, Europe had much less direct sunlight, meaning their skin absolutely had to lighten (after the deaths of millions, and after a few lucky individuals with genetic mutations survived and reproduced, of course) for them to survive in their new environment.
Africans, also, were very well adapted to their environment. Their diet was rich in vitamin D and their environment had very direct sunlight. They didn't need sunlight to synthesize vitamin D in their bodies since it was already present in the food they ate, and they needed as much melanin as possible to shield themselves from harmful UV radiation. Native Australians (Aboriginals), developed even darker skin than Africans because they lived under the natural Antarctic hole in the ozone layer, meaning not only were they susceptible to UVA and UVB radiation, but also to UVC radiation, which is the most harmful by far.
There's a million other cases of physical traits like these developing not just in humans, but in practically every other living thing on earth to allow them to survive where they live. So yes, I think it should be taught in schools.
Last edited:
Lackadaisy
Senior Member
That wasn't what I was advocating for. It has a place in schools when done properly
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
ok i thought you meant that it should be brought up while teaching evolution in science class, like "hey guys 2day we will talk about evolution. some people believe in evolution and some people don't and both are totally valid and equally science-y :')"
religion class is important but it doesn't make sense to bring it into other subjects (especially not if it's done to spread a religious message, like how sexual education in many school is like "uh god hates the gays and you shouldnt have sex before youre married the end" when it probably should b about STIs or pregnancy or whatever)
i think religious schools are fine as long as the religion doesn't have an impact on what is taught in the school. science is supposed to be objective and about facts so religion has no place in it. like, science can be in religion but i don't think religion can be in science if that makes sense ..??
EpicGamer12
Senior Member
As someone who has researched science and religion, I believe they can be interwoven pretty well. I'm not saying that religion and science should be taught hand in hand - I think everyone should be given an educated world view and let them decide for themselves. For example, evolution certainly does not contradict the Bible. Some believe that the process of evolution was how the Christian God created everything. Just like how you think religion should not be invested in science, I don't think science should be used as a means to say "there is definitely no God". It can be equally as harmful when you're invalidating the opinions of the majority of the world. Many great thinkers believe there is a God, many great thinkers don't.
Lackadaisy
Senior Member
Haha, yeah no, that wasn't what I meant at all.
I think Apple2013 makes a valid point though; even though religion doesn't need to be brought up in science classes, they don't necessarily have to exclude each other either. Someone can be a Christian and a scientist, in my opinion.
Obviously many scientists aren't religious, just because scientific thinking and the idea of "belief" are harder to reconcile with each other. However, I also think it's worth noting that monasteries were incredibly influential hubs for the development of the sciences, and that many significant contributors to scientific disciplines were monks and nuns themselves. Science should be for everyone, regardless of belief (or lack of) <3
Last edited:
Foreversacredx
Senior Member
I was taught about evaluation in secondary school briefly. I think it should be taught
oath2order
#Porygon2024
Evolution needs to be taught in schools.
Creationism should not be taught in public school.
Creationism should not be taught in public school.
