I’m of the opinion that if one is taught, the other should be, and if one isn’t allowed to be taught, the other shouldn’t be.
Neither one (Evolution or Creationism) can be absolutely proven as irrefutable facts. So if one is barred on that basis, the other should be. If one is allowed, the other should be. Taught side by side, or barred side by side.
I know what I believe, and I’ve studied both. But to not show children both sides is as ignorant as can be, and will only prevent children from knowing what’s out there, like we can put them in this protective bubble that prevents the world from corrupting them or something.
There are plenty of very intelligent people who will believe everything their religion tells them. It’s something that they’re taught from a very young age and it becomes such a part of their personal identity that it’s very difficult to question it at all.
here is the thing
religion is something that should not be imposed, also its something that it depends entirely of the family, every family is free to decide on what religion and what parts of that they would teach to their kids, even in the same religion there are different branchs that belive different things, not every chritian/catholic believes on creationism for example
i studied on a catholic school btw, and there they teached us that
a) god created everything (but that creationism is bullshit)
b) the evolution is the accepted theory about how different species appears on earth, etc, etc
i find funny that many idiots think that science and religion are mutually exclusive (this is not directed to you MP), i have friends that are priests and laugh when they hear shit like this stupidity on s. korea, like one of them said, “i belive on god, but im not an idiot”
Oh no… Then If it starts in the educational material will it be forced on their media as well…?
[media=youtube]huX6tTU5pOk[/media]
Oh well at least they will learn about Creationism in more or less this matter
Evolution has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
What we still discuss is how evolution happened.
Creationism is well…nothing…
The hypothesis that everything was created is completely meaningless. It’s of no use to science cause it can’t be tested.
It doesn’t increase your understanding of anything, it doesn’t improve human life, and it certainly doesn’t help education whatsoever.
It does however, give power to a certain institution who now has an army of willingly ignorant people who give preference to a small quantity of stupid arguments instead of the mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence that point otherwise.
Religion pisses me off, but I once realized that we used to believe in plenty of gods that are now simply forgotten or used for fiction works.
If people can’t be rational enough to notice a pattern that can be applied to modern religions as well, then there’s nothing you can do with a person like that…
A mind like that is useless for the frontier of human understanding.
The institution, though, is now powerful enough to alter laws and education to control the public opinion as they see fit.
The army of idiots will surely get many new members from the upcoming generations.
As much as I would love to say something, especially given how religious most of my Korean friends/acquaintances are, the Bible Belt of America is on some other level shit tbh
please dont generalize, like i said the catholic church accepts the evolution theory
religion is not bad per se, what is bad, its that there are idiots and fundamentalist that cant learn that the religion is there to guide on a spiritual side and that it cant be imposed, but that as any human institution needs to evolve, all the shit that was written so long ago, was done in a context where not much info about how the world and everything else works was avaible
Evolution is as much a fact as claiming the world is round. To state that we should teach the controversy is ridiculous. I guess we should also teach that the world exists on the back of a fucking turtle (Iroquois Myth), or that the Earth is flat, or that humans lived underground with Kaang (African Bushman Myth), etc… TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! LOL@that shit.
By the way, you do realize that almost everyone in the scientific community acknowledges evolution as a fact, right?
This isn’t true. It isn’t even close to being true. I’m not saying I believe either way. I agree that, if you’re arguing on scientific merit, that Creationism is easily behind Evolution (duh), but Evolution is not synonymous with solid scientific evidence. It has as many gaping holes as swiss cheese.
EDIT: And of course it’s widely agreed upon. It makes sense in theory, but it’s still just that, a theory. Just because it’s more science than creationism doesn’t make it actual science. Creationism was widely agree on before because it’s what made the most sense. Humans are always going to be searching for their origin, and I undoubtedly believe they will not find out.
Whether it was widely agreed upon is not something you can definitively say given the context of the times with the crusades and things of that nature. Evolution does occur, this is a fact. The part which is a theory is the way in which it occurs. The fact that evolution occurs can be discovered independently from multiple different fields of science.
Was wondering how long before someone used the just a theory argument while misunderstanding there’s a huge difference between the definition of the word theory that is used in an everyday colloquial sense and theory that is used in the scientific community.
Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology
Aug 18, 2006 Katharine M. J. Osborne
The definition of the word “theory” in the context of science is sometimes hotly argued by non-scientists
The origin of this confusion has it’s roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton’s laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word “law” has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that’s completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn’t something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can’t commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn’t be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the use of “law” in favor of “theory”. This “theory” does not mean “hypothesis” which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
You should learn your definition before you make statements that make you look like a dumbass.
This is what I mean. It’s clear that organisms have the ability to adapt and inherent characteristics. I simply mean that it is not proven that evolution is the sole means that organisms diversified and came into existence. Sorry if I was unclear. This notion that it is factual that there is a “universal common ancestor” cannot be proven. It can only be assumed. Collective data may show that there are certain commonalities between species, but actual scientific procedure cannot prove it.
