Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?

On Mar 21, 6:03 pm, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

CURRENT STANDING ON THE QUESTION OF WHY THE THEORY THAT "ALL LIFE ON
EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" SHOULD BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN
SCHOOLS:

There appear to be three categories of answers provided to why should
the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" should be
taught as science in schools:

Reason A:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" does not,
or may not, produce any tangible or intangible benefits to society.
However, it is science and therefore should be taught as science.

Response to Reason A:
If you believe ANY subject should be taught in schools that provides
neither tangible nor intangible benefits to society, then I strongly
disagree with you. By teaching them something that doesn't produce
benefits, they are not being taught something that does produce
benefits. This is a philosophical disagreement, so further discussion
is probably not useful. (but maybe it should be discussed anyway?!)

Reason B:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" at least
produces intangible benefits to society. Therefore, it should be
taught as science in schools.

Response to Reason B:
Some of you pointed out that art, literature, and similar subjects
produce only intangible benefits, but should be taught. I agree
wholeheartedly. But is science on the same level as art and
literature? Don't most of you think of science as being more
objective, such as learning about the physical environment and its
laws. Isn't this why so many students dislike science: it is drier
and more mathematical than art and literature, which are emotionally
richer and more subjective. Most importantly, if teaching the theory
that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" produces only
intangible benefits, then it is equivalent to teaching religion, and
teaching Intelligent Design is just as "scientific" as this type of
evolution. My personal belief is that science should produce tangible
benefits, at least over time, so teaching the theory that "all life on
Earth shares a common ancestor" should not be taught as science if it
produces only intangible benefits. Maybe it would be appropriate
outside of the science class, but of course Intelligent Design has
just as much reason for being taught then.

Reason C:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" produces
tangible benefits to society, and therefore should be taught as
science.

Response to Reason C:
If the theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"
produces tangible benefits to society, then I agree that it should be
taught as science in schools. However, none of you have provided a
clear example of such benefits. Some of you provided very scientific-
sounding lists of articles or benefits. Of course listing articles or
benefits is not much proof in itself. A single detailed example or a
reference to a detailed example is needed to assess whether the theory
has produced such a benefit.
[Steven J: I didn't give your response the attention it deserved and
it provided at least some details; would appreciate if you would add
more details (or the reference) in answer to the final question
below]

FINAL QUESTION

IS THERE A SINGLE EXAMPLE SHOWING HOW TEACHING THE THEORY THAT "ALL
LIFE ON EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" HAS PRODUCED A TANGIBLE
BENEFIT TO SOCIETY. If so, please provide either a detailed account
or a reference to a detailed account; one example only. (After 150
years, shouldn't there be one shining example?)

If no one provides such an example, then my conclusion must be that
teaching the theory "that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"
produces, at best, intangible benefits. Such benefits are
unscientific and therefore this theory does not belong in science
class. If it should be taught outside of science, then Intelligent
Design has as much right to be taught.

This is your last shot! I only intend to answer those of you who at
least take a shot at the final question.

Why are you so hung up on "tangible benefits"? There is no "tangible
benefit" to teaching astronomy, and yet we do. There is no "tangible
benefit" to teaching ancient history, and yet we do.

The answer is the same as the reason to teach evolution: because
astronomy and history are facts, whether there is any "tangible
benefit" or not. Even if biologists weren't using evolutionary theory
to help develop new medicine (which they are), it would still be right
to teach the Theory of Evolution in science class because it is the
correct scientific description of how life actually works.

- Bob T.

Thanks,
sss1000


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... We're talking about evolution, which is orthogonal. ... Science has shown that this is not the case. ... >>>to all life and explains everything. ... >>eukaryotes are related through a single common ancestor. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" SHOULD BETAUGHTAS SCIENCE IN ... the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" should be ... The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" does not, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" SHOULD BETAUGHTAS SCIENCE IN ... the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" should be ... The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" does not, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" SHOULD BETAUGHTAS SCIENCE IN ... thetheorythat all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" should be ... Thetheorythat "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" does not, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: how good are those young-earth arguments?
    ... except to offer an alternative to evolution theory (that all life came ... So you haven't paid attention in science classes *or in your church. ... Creationists certainly do want their religious dogma taught instead of ... as an explanation for the current diversity of life. ...
    (talk.origins)