Should Evolution Be Taught In Public Schools?

[missionseeker]

"A belief in creation, and a rightly understood doctrine of evolution, do not stand in each other's way. Evolution presupposed careation; creation, seen in the light of evolution, appears as an event extended over time - as a creatio continuua, as a continuing creaton - in that God become visible, to they eye of faith, as the 'creator of heaven and earth'"

the Christian picture of the world is this: that the world in its details is the product of a long process of evolution but that at its most profound level it comes from the LOGos. Thus it carrues rationality within itself."


Cardinal Ratzinger, a.k.a., Da pope.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1642032' date='Aug 29 2008, 10:40 PM']Yes, because people have a right to believe in anything they choose to believe in. As long as it doesn't interfere in the rights of a person to believe in something without ridicule.

Funny, an entire group of high school students having a book that shows where each part of a Biological text books assertions about Evolution might be wrong, and we're a minority! LOL![/quote]

You have the right to believe in something with out ridicule? No , no you don't, some ideas and beliefs are worthy only of ridicule and those who hold to them are as well.

That said as a science teacher I have never had any trouble teaching the theory of evolution... even in my years teaching in a Catholic school. One simply has to remember to teach evelution as what it is , a theory, which has a significant amout of evidence to support it but is not, (and can never be determined to be) a fact.

Sort of like how you have to teach the Big Bang theory.

[Resurrexi]

I would say that evolution with intelligent design should be taught in public schools (which, however, I do not think should exist, but that's another argument) and in Catholic schools creationism, intelligent design and evolution should all be taught, for, far from being contradictory, all three compliment each other.

I think it's silly that there's all this argument over evolution. Much worse is that in public schools people are being taught things like contraceptive methods.

Edited September 10, 2008 by StThomasMore

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1651959' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:07 PM']creationism, intelligent design and evolution ... far from being contradictory, all three compliment each other.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1651959' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:07 PM']I think it's silly that there's all this argument over evolution. Much worse is that in public schools people are being taught things like contraceptive methods.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1651959' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:07 PM']I would say that evolution with intelligent design should be taught in public schools[/quote]

Cautious. I don't believe that intelligent design is science (but I do believe it to be true), and so I question whether it should be taught in the science classroom. On the other hand, I believe that it is important for education to be relevant, and since there is a big discussion on intelligent design in the American society, it makes sense to me that an unbiased presentation of it should be presented if only so that students are able to engage in intelligent conversation on the topic, whether they choose to agree or disagree. This is a delicate line to walk in the classroom, however.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1651959' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:07 PM']public schools (which, however, I do not think should exist, but that's another argument)[/quote]

Vehemently disagreed, but, as you said, that's another argument.

[JustJ]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1643118' date='Aug 31 2008, 01:02 AM']the only problem i have with evolution being taught is it is being taught as if it were a law and it is a THEORY!
There are several holes still like if we were at one point little dust particles flying in space where did those dust particules come from???
And If we did evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys???[/quote]
[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[/url]

[Selah]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1645076' date='Sep 2 2008, 01:05 AM']Cardinal Newman: "the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill"[/quote]

Hence why I am a theistic evolutionist.

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1647009' date='Sep 4 2008, 01:41 AM']Sort of like how you have to teach the Big Bang theory.[/quote]

A theory developed by someone far from irreligious, a Jesuit priest [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre[/url]

Science and Christianity can work together, it's just that some of the scientists refuse to play nice

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1653811' date='Sep 12 2008, 11:16 AM']A theory developed by someone far from irreligious, a Jesuit priest [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre[/url]

Science and Christianity can work together, it's just that some of the scientists refuse to play nice[/quote]
Gotta LOVE those priests!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1653811' date='Sep 12 2008, 09:16 AM']Science and Christianity can work together, it's just that some of the scientists refuse to play nice[/quote]
To be fair, some Christians refuse to play nice as well.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1653811' date='Sep 12 2008, 10:16 AM']Science and Christianity can work together, it's just that some of the scientists refuse to play nice[/quote]


[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1654987' date='Sep 13 2008, 09:58 PM']To be fair, some Christians refuse to play nice as well.[/quote]

Indeed. I remember reading some sort of document about the Church's teaching (I don't think that it was an official Church document, though, but someone's independent reflection) that said something to the effect of:

"So long as neither the theologian nor the scientist overstep their bounds and speak on what they hold no experience on, Truth may not contradict Truth."

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1654987' date='Sep 13 2008, 10:58 PM']To be fair, some Christians refuse to play nice as well.[/quote]

True.

There seems to be a divide between the Christians and the Scientists, and the common disagreement centers on Intelligent Design, though there are some scientists who would be known as "theistic Darwinists." Francis Collins comes to mind, the author or the NYT bestseller "Language of God." However, someone like William Dembski or Michael Behe would fall in that category of Christians who don't want to play nice, they believe in ID but have difficulties with certain aspects of Darwin's theory and see them as irreconcilable. That is why Richard Dawkins and others like to attack them as the poster children for a Creationist view. Although, in all fairness, Dawkins is the poster boy for Darwinian atheism, looking upon Darwin's theory as a religion itself.

It is a very interesting debate that has been going on between the adamant Creationists, the theistic Darwinists and the atheists, some of whom are themselves scientists, Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (who sees religion as a parasite or, at the very least, a virus) seem to come to mind. Yet, the difficulty I have is that scientists have started to try to answer theological questions. In fact, why is it that when I go to the science section in Borders or Barnes and Noble I see books like "God, the Failed Hypthesis" or "The God Delusion" among others? I think while many Christians have overstepped their bounds, so too have the scientists. I think there is a common ground that is being refused to be found because of each's strong convictions in one way or the other. This is why I think people like Francis Collins or a guy by the name of Kenneth Miller have a lot to offer, seeing as they are both Christians and scientists, though the majority of Christian scientists seem to have begun as atheists and come to the conclusion of theism of some kind, because not all believe in everything a Christian subscribes to.

The question then is where is the breakdown? Granted, most scientists seem to think they can prove or disprove even God with the same line of reasoning of hypothesis and theory, but some realize the limits of science and are forced to resign themselves to "something more," but the problem is that is happening less and less.

So, while Christians and scientists are not getting along, there has to be a common ground that is being missed somewhere. I think some have started to find it, but most refuse to even look.

Just my long .02

[Vincent Vega]

I would not disagree with a word of that, Father. One thing that extremist Christians and scientists both need to realize is that science and religion are not, nor could ever be, substitutes for one another. The trouble begins when you try to use the Bible as a science or history text, and likewise when you look to your science book for spiritual guidance. Christians do get a bad rap, mostly unfairly, from the scientific community because of our religion.
It could be that I live in the so called 'Bible Belt' that it comes off like this, but it seems to me that many Christians do, to some extent, feel threatened by science. As mentioned in the article, there's a teacher down the hall that teaches a unit called "Evolution or Not?" preaching the same silly rhetoric of "only a theory" and so forth. Some of my closest friends have had to endure that class, and so the function of the tail bone happened to come up during marching band practice (people will not a lot in the derrière department tend to find doing situps on a black-top to be less than enjoyable, and that was our punishment from the director at the time the conversation arose. ) We were talking about the purpose, and one of them said that this teacher had said it's for balance. I said that theory seemed to be pretty goofy, and that it seemed more likely to be a vestigial structure from a tail of some kind. They were appalled that I would say such a thing, and asked if I believed in evolution. I told them that there was significant scientific evidence in favour of it (when they challenged that and I asked for prove against it, they danced around my question), and that it seemed plausible. They were awestruck that I could say that I was a Christian and could believe in evolution.
I guess when one's religion is solely based off of strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, the proposition would be rather threatening though.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1654996' date='Sep 13 2008, 10:03 PM']Indeed. I remember reading some sort of document about the Church's teaching (I don't think that it was an official Church document, though, but someone's independent reflection) that said something to the effect of:

"So long as neither the theologian nor the scientist overstep their bounds and speak on what they hold no experience on, Truth may not contradict Truth."[/quote]


Except that Science has no interest in Truth. The first thing I teach my students in science, "Science is interested in facts. A fact is something you can prove." The Truth is absolutly of no meaning to Science. It is a critical error in the understanding of science to mistake the two.

Science is a philosphical system used for determinig Facts about the natural world, it is nothing more nor less.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1661823' date='Sep 23 2008, 05:26 PM']Except that Science has no interest in Truth. The first thing I teach my students in science, "Science is interested in facts. A fact is something you can prove." The Truth is absolutly of no meaning to Science. It is a critical error in the understanding of science to mistake the two.

Science is a philosphical system used for determinig Facts about the natural world, it is nothing more nor less.[/quote]
Or as many an archaeologist has taught others "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth"

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1661825' date='Sep 23 2008, 12:32 PM']Or as many an archaeologist has taught others "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth" [/quote]


Yup! You should see the shocked look on middle schoolers faces though. Priceless!

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1661828' date='Sep 23 2008, 05:36 PM']Yup! You should see the shocked look on middle schoolers faces though. Priceless![/quote]
I used that line when teaching some elementary kids about archaeology. All I got were blank stares.

[CrossCuT]

[quote name='Selah' post='1652829' date='Sep 10 2008, 11:54 PM'] Hence why I am a theistic evolutionist.[/quote]
[size=1]Yay Im not the only one!

Science and Religion CAN compliment eachother.
[/size]

Edited September 29, 2008 by CrossCuT

[Domine ut Videam]

i think that a balance of both evolution and intelligent design/creationism should be taught.