Evolution and Creationism in the classroom

[user79]

I definitely don't think creationism should be taught in Biology class, it has no place there because there is absolutely ZERO scientific evidence for it. However, there is a lot more and quite more convincing scientific evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution, and the theory that we evolved from apes. Yes there is still a missing link, but the theory is far more based on physical proof of found remainsm, and study of fossils, plants and animals, to underscore the theory, especially with how animals or plants have genetically evolved.

I don't think it would be harmful, however, to teach children about a variety of religions, and each of their main ideas about how life was created, their pillars, etc. I don't think it should be a focus though to use religion to explain the existance of humans and the universe because there is no scientific evidence for it, but I think it's not a bad idea to make people more aware of different religions and what other people on this world believe in. It fosters mutual understanding, and helps to stop ignorance about other people's religious beliefs. I'm an atheist, but I have read up and taken a university course even about the main ideas of Judaism, Islam and Christianity to know what these religions are based on, what their values are, etc. I don't think it should be taught in biology or science class, more from a sociological-humanist aspect.

That creationist museum in the States frightens me though.

I'd actually like to visit it someday though out of curiosity!

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingFrAbsoltion That's not really nature. Just an unfortunate incident. Natural selection is when favorable traits that benefit survival of the species are passed down. Because of these different traits species evolve, the traits that are not beneficial die out. I understand what you were trying to say, it's just it doesn't really have to do with evolution, I wouldn't think of that situation in that way. It's sad, but it's a single incident and doesn't affect the human species(in the sense of evolution). But I do agree that when a touchy subject like that gets involved people change opinions.

I'm pretty sure that's nature's way of saying "Dumb people shouldn't breed."

Each single incident that taken alone doesn't affect the human species, but taken together, unfavorable traits are removed from the pool.

That's a heartless way of looking at things, in a manner, and I would never say it diminished the grief that family felt.

 

[duckduck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkylarV217 Yes people and animals evolve and have evolved that is fact, but the theory of evolution as creation is the theory I am speaking of. I know certain parts of Evolution have been proven and can be seen directly... The theory of Man evolving from Apes can not / has not been proven. Thats what I have a problem with. I have taken Anthropology

Dead on

In my HS Biology course (back in 1999), we were taught the difference between a theory, law, hypothesis etc., so when the theory of evolution was brought up, we all knew what it meant. I had assumed this was standard practice?

 

[Hilly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingFrAbsoltion That's not really nature. Just an unfortunate incident. Natural selection is when favorable traits that benefit survival of the species are passed down. Because of these different traits species evolve, the traits that are not beneficial die out. I understand what you were trying to say, it's just it doesn't really have to do with evolution, I wouldn't think of that situation in that way. It's sad, but it's a single incident and doesn't affect the human species(in the sense of evolution).

ITA... the incident where the kid crosses the track due to stupidity or being suicidal or an accident (whatever the situation you choose)-to me and what i have learned in Biology certainly does not dictate Survival of the Fittest. I don't think the railroad crosser's genes had to do with their squashing on the track.

 

[Shimmer]

It had plenty to do with it, one could argue.
Imminent signs of danger, repeated warnings against an action...and an expressed inability to make a decision based on information taught throughout life and then a complete lack of heed for survival instinct.
Not favorable traits, conscious or sub conscious IMO.
It's like the fish who swims up to the shark and says "LOOK! TEETH!" then gets chomped.

 

[Hilly]

Well in that case, when you burn yourself while cooking- is that evolution telling you that you're stupid for burning yourself and therefore don't deserve skin? Come on, accidents happen despite warnings. I really don't think that evolution is in action here.

 

[Shimmer]

There's an ENTIRELY different set of circumstances there.
To burn oneself while taking precaution is accident.
It's an inadvertent result of a careless action.



Trains? They don't just jump up on you and say "BOO!", those red blinking lights and crossarms blocking traffic? They're not frivolous decoration meant to make the road look all pretty from a plane. You can hear a train coming. You can see the train's light, you can hear its whistle. We're talking about multiple tons of cold steel rolling along at a fair rate of speed and a high volume that from the time children are VERY SMALL they're told to recognize and STAY AWAY FROM.

It's an entirely different set of circumstances to pick up a pot that you may not have realized was hot (unless, of course, it was glowing red or smoking) compared to being at a crossing, deliberately circumventing the crossarms while the light is blinking and the train is coming. You can SEE the train coming, you can't necessarily see the heat on the pot. THAT is where survival instinct kicks in.

 

[Hilly]

I'll agree to disagree with you.

Anyways- back to evolution vs. creationism!

 

[duckduck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'm pretty sure that's nature's way of saying "Dumb people shouldn't breed." Each single incident that taken alone doesn't affect the human species, but taken together, unfavorable traits are removed from the pool. That's a heartless way of looking at things, in a manner, and I would never say it diminished the grief that family felt.

In order for this to be considered natural selection, there must be a genetically inherited/inheritable feature which makes the child more likely to end up in front of the train. "Dumb" is not very specific, so I will assume we are talking "unable to properly & correctly assess risk." Risk assessment in a normal person comes from a variety of places: environmental, biological, and genetic. We could argue all day long about which of these factors or combination of factors caused a kid to step out in front of a train, but unless there is solid evidence that a strong genetic component was at fault, natural selection would not be credited for this incident.

A better example would be if the child had inherited a genetic brain disorder which made it impossible for him to understand the concept of risk. If, due to this disorder, he choose to cross in front of the train and dies, then that would be considered part of natural selection.

What I don't really understand is why it is important or heartless. Natural selection does not state that the members of the species deserve their fates, it only gives a guideline as to which members of a species are more likely to survive or die. I don't think anyone would be surprised to learn that a person with a genetic disorder that causes them to be unable to understand risk, or a person who is genetically predisposed to have heart defects would be more likely to die at a younger age than those who do not possess those features. No one (excluding a few homicidal maniacs) rejoices at those deaths for the improvement of the species - if anything it drives us to work harder at preventing these things from happening by making our society safer and advancing medicine further.

 

[Hilly]

I definitely agree with you Duckduck. I take NS to be weeding out the weaker genes in the pool. Not personal characteristics such as being dumb.

 

[SkylarV217]

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckduck Dead on In my HS Biology course (back in 1999), we were taught the difference between a theory, law, hypothesis etc., so when the theory of evolution was brought up, we all knew what it meant. I had assumed this was standard practice?

In Highschools now it is no longer taught as theory ... but This is how it happened ... There is no preface saying this is what we think happened. At least that is how the books we had put it. Once again I live in the bible belt, and my teachers simply skipped over the topic all together. I have no problems with a Theory Being taught as Theory but when a Theory is presented as fact simply because other parts of Evolution has been proven is wrong. Once again, when dealing in theories more than one should be offered.

 

[SkylarV217]

I thought this could be relevant. It's supposed to show how it is taught in the various states =)

 

[SingFrAbsoltion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'm pretty sure that's nature's way of saying "Dumb people shouldn't breed." Each single incident that taken alone doesn't affect the human species, but taken together, unfavorable traits are removed from the pool. That's a heartless way of looking at things, in a manner, and I would never say it diminished the grief that family felt.

I don't see how getting hit by a train is dumb? Maybe she had headphones on and couldn't hear, I don't really know if this is an actual story or just an example so I'm just guessing. Evolution by natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with this. What natural selection means is:
1) individuals vary within population in respect to traits
2) variable traits can be inherited
3) some benefit survival

Since we are talking about animals(humans are included) this is all about physical traits that can be passed on. Survival of the fittest in the theory of evolution means genetic wise.



Bleh I just took a test on this. I was drilling that textbook all last night

 

[SkylarV217]

To me , If there are no proven explanations as to where we came from, why is it necessary to teach anything. If there are no real answers why must it be taught. I for one don't want my child being told he came from an Ape. If that was proven its one thing, since it is not I don't want that thought in his mind. There's no need to teach things that haven't been proven when there are some many other things our children NEED to learn that they don't. There needs to be a standardization in what US children learn in school. Why worry about teaching something that no one is ever going to agree on when you could spend the time teaching more pertinent thing.

 

[frocher]

..........

 

[frocher]

.........

 

[Karen_B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I love how everyone endorses natural selection/evolution being taught in the classroom, with the 'survival of the fittest' type thing being generally accepted... until... A 15 year old decides to cross the train tracks while the cross arms are down and is killed by the oncoming train. Arguably, that was natural selection working at its finest, and simply nature taking its course in making sure that the human race procreates using favorable genetics. All of a sudden, natural selection isn't such a popular subject of conversation.

I am not entirely sure that this type of behaviour can be completely attributed to genetics

Young people generally have poor judgement. I wouldn't say that crossing a train track while the cross arms are down is a sign of poor genetic setup.

 

[Shimmer]

In order for this to be considered natural selection, there must be a genetically inherited/inheritable feature which makes the child more likely to end up in front of the train. "Dumb" is not very specific, so I will assume we are talking "unable to properly & correctly assess risk." Risk assessment in a normal person comes from a variety of places: environmental, biological, and genetic. We could argue all day long about which of these factors or combination of factors caused a kid to step out in front of a train, but unless there is solid evidence that a strong genetic component was at fault, natural selection would not be credited for this incident.

I completely disagree. At its most basic, NS is 'survival of the fittest'. It's not, based on the outcome, completely unreasonable to say that she ignored danger and completely disregarded any type of survival instinct. As I said, it's at its most basic level, but it's there, IMO. (This is, of course, hypothetically speaking; I've not yet met anyone who's lost a child because the child decided to completely ignore any and all cross arms, warnings, lights, flashing lights, rumblings, and commotion caused by several tons of metal moving along at 20 mph+).
Quote:

A better example would be if the child had inherited a genetic brain disorder which made it impossible for him to understand the concept of risk. If, due to this disorder, he choose to cross in front of the train and dies, then that would be considered part of natural selection. What I don't really understand is why it is important or heartless. Natural selection does not state that the members of the species deserve their fates, it only gives a guideline as to which members of a species are more likely to survive or die. I don't think anyone would be surprised to learn that a person with a genetic disorder that causes them to be unable to understand risk, or a person who is genetically predisposed to have heart defects would be more likely to die at a younger age than those who do not possess those features. No one (excluding a few homicidal maniacs) rejoices at those deaths for the improvement of the species - if anything it drives us to work harder at preventing these things from happening by making our society safer and advancing medicine further.

I don't think anyone is surprised when persons who are, genetic disorder or not, incapable of deliberating a situation and properly assessing risk wind up as memories. One doesn't have to have a disorder to be 'unfit'. Laziness isn't a genetic disorder but it's certainly an undesirable trait that doesn't benefit the species.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingFrAbsoltion I don't see how getting hit by a train is dumb? Maybe she had headphones on and couldn't hear, I don't really know if this is an actual story or just an example so I'm just guessing. Evolution by natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with this. What natural selection means is: 1) individuals vary within population in respect to traits 2) variable traits can be inherited 3) some benefit survival

You don't have to hear a train to know it's coming. The crossarms across the road, the flashing red lights, the big huge white light on the front of the train, the rumbling of the train as it approaches...one has to be deaf, dumb, blind, and completely out of tune with one's surroundings to miss that. I've been at the gym climbing and had trains go by that rumble the walls I'm holding on to.
Quote:

Since we are talking about animals(humans are included) this is all about physical traits that can be passed on. Survival of the fittest in the theory of evolution means genetic wise. Bleh I just took a test on this. I was drilling that textbook all last night

I'm not saying it was completely NS at work, but it's a perfect example of someone who's judgment (through some sort of defect, known or unknown) wasn't beneficial enough to herself to keep her alive long enough to procreate.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karen_B I am not entirely sure that this type of behaviour can be completely attributed to genetics Young people generally have poor judgement. I wouldn't say that crossing a train track while the cross arms are down is a sign of poor genetic setup.

Sure it is.
Genetically and instinctively, self preservation is a HUGE part of our makeup.

Everything that could have been of assistance to that instinct was ignored.

 

[Karen_B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Sure it is. Genetically and instinctively, self preservation is a HUGE part of our makeup. Everything that could have been of assistance to that instinct was ignored.

Human behaviour is a complex thing, and can't be explained by genetics alone.
You could turn it around and say that risk taking is an advantage as well. Who knows, if we hadn't taken the risk to jump down from the trees and started walking the earth maybe we wouldn't be here today?