DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

I agree with Jared. Also, I think that the gaps in the theory should also be presented. I am homeschooled, but have a fairly good knowledge of how evolution works- enough to know just how much it doesn't make sense when you examine it. I think that other origin theories should be presented as well.

If they want to teach evolution in school fine, but not in elementary school. I think they're too young to really understand and comprehend it. Wait until at least junior or high school before teaching it.That's like teaching kindergarten and elementary kids things about sex and masturbation, they are way too young for that, and I'm sure they are not even interested in that yet. Why do they feel they have to teach everything there is to such young kids. Let them be kids first, and when they're old enough to understand, then teach them.

I didnt learn about evolution until I went to college and only because I majored in zoology. We briefly talked about it in high school but teaching it in elementary school is way too early. Kids need to learn the basics first. The problem today is that society is trying to make out kids grow up too fast by again shoving all these ideas and subjects down their throats. Let them be kids! And another thing, I had a christian friend ask me once, because I am a believer in evolution and in God, what if evolution is Gods plan?

Outside of a sort of tautological relativism that proclaims all knowledge outside of mathematical proofs to be irrelevant or impossible there are no sufficient gaps. Thus far any sufficient test to explain the mechanisms that can be observed and studied has proven this theory as a factual explanation for the development of life and its diversity and a variety of scientific fields that didn't even exist at the time of Darwin (genetics for example) demonstrate its veracity. The gaps, such as they are, are related to specific mechanisms such as punctuated equilibrium. Not general overriding mechanisms like natural selection or objections to something like the purposeful design of flagellate microbes.

The next most obvious question to reply to this one would be: as opposed to teaching them what? If someone can come up with a testable and verifiable theory which somehow better fits the massive amount of evidentiary supports for the present Darwinian theory, I'd be all for it being taught in public schools. We don't teach Newtonian Laws of gravity and motion for physics in the same regard as Einstein's theory of relativity for the same reason.

Guess what? I learned about Darwin in the 5th grade way back in the early 1950's in a public school. Darwin's ideas were taught as theories, and theories were taught to us as an idea under scientific research – meaning that there was actually no solid proof that Darwin was right. Previously, I had attended a Catholic private school and was taught Creationism as fact.

Guess what? I later learned that the teaching of religion is called Theology – meaning the teaching of theory which I already had been taught was the scientific study of ideas that not yet had enough evidence in the can to be classified as proven fact.

So, in conclusion, my thoughts on all this is that we still do not have enough evidence to prove either theory one way or another. And that is I how I think this whole thing should be presented to grade school age children in order that they may reach their own informed conclusion.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

"was the scientific study of ideas that not yet had enough evidence in the can to be classified as proven fact. " – That's precisely what I meant about the tautological philosophy. Unless you believe that there is nothing in the physical world that can be taken as evidence for anything with say 99.9% clarity, and that such evidence would not suffice to be considered as true, there's actually a ton of evidence for the veracity of evolution as a fact. Mountains of it. Volumes of it. Entire scientific disciplines of it. If this is not enough evidence to prove evolution then it is not enough evidence to prove the existence and functions of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. And if that's the case you may as well admit that you don't believe science is a useful way for examining the universe (for whatever reason) and that your problem is not with evolutionary theory but the scientific method in general.

The capacity of doubt in science means that there will always be continued study and possible improvement on its theories purporting to explain the nature of the universe. But so long as new evidence and experimentation continues to confirm such theories they remain perfectly useful and viable. There is no scientific evidence that they can be presented that allows people to "reach their own informed conclusion" in such a way that they would be able to deny with seriousness theories like Darwin's. But you're certainly welcome to try to come up with some. That's pretty much the whole point of scientific inquiry: its examination of falsifiable claims to fact.

Evolution should be taught as a theory only and objections to it and arguments against should also be covered also. Not all arguments and objections are religious in nature, there are many gaps in the theory and much of it has been well disputed and well documented. A child who is being educated with the tax dollars of all citizens should get the whole story, not just one side of it.

"Only a theory" in scientific terminology is not "only a theory" in normal terms. Should we propose that a child should get the whole story for a patently ridiculous theory like the moon landing conspiracies or the flat earth society should get to come in once a year and teach their side? Because that's basically the same sort of claim that there are two legitimately opposed scientific sides which deserve coverage in a science class.

I'd have no problem with presenting debate over intricate scientific theories on the precise mechanisms of evolutionary theory (things like punctuated equilibrium). But I rather doubt most high school kids are going into a field of study relating to it and would therefore care or that almost anyone before that age would understand the terminology and would thus understand it anyway. It's rather clear that most adults don't know what this stuff means either. Try asking Americans if humans evolved from monkeys and apes based on Darwin; they're almost always wrong. Between the scientists and the undereducated masses, I think I'm going to go side with the scientists when it comes to educating kids in science.

There are no scientifically testable oppositions and gaps within evolutionary theory. Virtually all opposition is rooted fundamentally in religious objection, (almost all of which is Christian, even Muslims are more respectful of evolution on average), esoteric philosophical objections to scientific knowledge, or is a deliberate misrepresentation of evidence. Most commonly using a totally different data set that is easily rejected as invalid, such as Biblical histories or somehow assembling chronology using canonical texts. This results in things like the "theory" of intelligent design (theory in this case being a common usage term, there is nothing scientific about ID). Michael Behe as a biochemist has some proposals that purport to poke holes in the theory while raising some speculative glances at legitimizing ID research and theory. But as pretty much the only person in a relevant scientific field doing that sort of work and supporting supposed gaps, even he is easily dismissed as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about if you've actually studied evolutionary theory or microbiology/genetics. And even he accepts almost all of evolutionary theory as credible and valid. He has instead some very specific quibbles that aren't a testable model of their own relating to evolution. Everything else out there put forward as a "gap" isn't even in the same room, much less the same conversation.

If in this case there are "two sides" the second side is not a scientific side and belongs, if at all, somewhere else in the curriculum. A philosophy or theology course for example. One should note that many Catholic/religious schools will freely teach "both sides" now days. But they teach one side in a religious course and the other in science. They don't put them side-by-side because they're not using the same methods, language, or evidence.

Just forget that stuff.

Comparing moon landing conspiracies to ID is a typical Straw Man argument.
Naturalistic evolution equated with science itself, and any differing view is always diqualified as "religion." Therefore making impossible to debate over whether the the "theory" is true, it's virtually true by definition.

Lets not forget people, the there are many sections of evolution which are provable, and scientifically factual. We are definitely aware of a species ability to change over time. This includes our own human species where we definitely show a time when humans as we are now were very different and most definetly came from some other species. A theory is just a scientific law that hasn't been FULLY proven yet….. There is no proof that creationism ever happened. No physical evidence. The only object you have to point towards creationism is the Bible. Man has existed alot longer than even the bible is willing to admit. And no, faith alone cannot define your entire existence. Evolution happened, in one form or another.

Microevolution is the ability of the animals to change in order to adapt to their environment and needs related thereof, the name should be change since a dog still is a dog, long hair, short hair, but still a dog.
Now, it is necessary to teach a children in this path from early childhood since it will mold their world view and will impact their lives as to the results we have today in our society.
This teaching was enforce primary since 1964 and you can take a look of the statistics today more than 40 years later you can examine and observe the results.

It has been always crime and issues, but the statistics after 1964 have exploded exponentially, evolution has led the children of yesterday to believe there is no moral absolute, everybody has his own truth, the stronger and bigger has the “natural selection right” to take what it needs, there is not right or wrong.
Marriage, family, life, respect, decency, justice, etc , are today relative concepts.
If you are 60+ years old you can tell us about that change with no further research, it is hard to believe our children cannot play outside like we did.
IT is hard to believe you cannot even go to high school safely anymore since long ago, someone may take a gun or drugs or who know what else?
I believe you already have the picture.

I see nothing wrong with teaching students something that promotes morality. Especially because of the errancy of evolution. (that is right guess what side i am on?) And Quois, God's plan for the creation of the world was told in the book of Genesis.