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

On Mar 21, 9:21 pm, "Bob T." <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 BETAUGHTAS 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
taughtas 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 betaughtas science.

Response to Reason A:
If you believe ANY subject should betaughtin 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 beingtaughtsomething 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
taughtas science in schools.

Response to Reason B:
Some of you pointed out that art, literature, and similar subjects
produce only intangible benefits, but should betaught. 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 betaughtas 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 beingtaughtthen.

Reason C:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" produces
tangible benefits to society, and therefore should betaughtas
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
taughtas 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 betaughtoutside of science, then Intelligent
Design has as much right to betaught.

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 teachevolution: 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 ofEvolutionin science class because it is the
correct scientific description of how life actually works.

- Bob T.





Thanks,
sss1000- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bob,

Astronomy is probably not of much tangible benefit to modern man.
In the ancient world it was very important in that it allowed men to
navigate at night. Modern man has less obvious benefits, but they may
include: ability to predict poor radio communications due to
increased solar activity, ability to predict eclipses, and the
knowledge to send spacecraft to other planets. Admittedly, these
benefits are somewhat small.

How would society be hurt if students were never taught astronomy?
Probably only in limited ways. However, don't people like to study
astronomy because it fills them with a sense of awe. This is probably
a good thing. Note that astronomy, unlike evolution, DOES have the
ability to accurately predict future events. In fact, that is why
scientists believe it. They can accurately predict when a particular
comet will swing closest to earth, when a meteor shower will occur,
when an eclipse will occur, and even when radio communications will be
interfered with due to increased solar activity.

Teaching Ancient History does not have tangible benefits; Agreed.
So is Evolution on the same par with Ancient History? In fact, isn't
that exactly what Evolution is?

So not all truly scientific discoveries have tangible benefits to
society, but if they don't, and if they also don't have intangible
benefits, why teach them?

Astronomical theories have been disproven over time as new
scientific observations and scientific results come to light. (e.g.
astronomer's once believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, but Galileo
provided scientific evidence to refute that claim)

Why do you accept evolution as fact, without any reservations?
(Again, I am solely meaning the theory that all life descended from a
common ancestor? Did you read my above quotes? Have you ever
searched online for scientists, and yes leading evolutionists, who
harbor more doubts than you do? Wouldn't a scientific person try to
hear the arguments AGAINST evolution.

A question to you: Is there any conceivable future scientific
discovery or experimental result that would cause you to conclude that
evolution (the part that says that all organisms descended from the
same ancestor) is false?



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 ... 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: 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: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... CURRENT STANDING ON THE QUESTION OF WHY THE THEORY THAT "ALL LIFE ON ... EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" SHOULD BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN ... the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" should be ...
    (talk.origins)