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

On Mar 21, 8:55 pm, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

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.

No, that is _not_ why scientists believe in astronomy. They believe
in astronomy because it matches the observed evidence.

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.

And evolutionary scientists can predict where a particular type of
transitional fossil might be found.

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?

No. Evolution is the correct description of how life on Earth has
changed and diversified over time. Since our bodies are biological
entities that are the product of billions of years of evolution, much
knowledge about our physical nature can be gleaned from a correct
understanding of evolution. Perhaps more importantly, evolutionary
theory gives us information about viruses and bacteria that cause
disease. There was a story in the paper the other day about all the
extra flu shots in storage that were not used this winter. Those
shots are being destroyed because they will not be useful next
winter. Why? Because the flu virus will have _evolved_ by then.


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?

Because they describe reality. Even if I never have any practical use
for my knowledge about the eight (formerly nine ;-) planets in the
solar system, I am glad that I know about them. Of course, as I
described above, evolutionary knowledge is extremely practical from
the standpoint of medical science.


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)

Similarly, the science of evolution has come a long way since Darwin.

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.

I have studied the subject as an enthusiastic amateur for years and I
am quite confident in the ToE.

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?

Actually, your question is not well put. I find it quite believable
that there is life on other planets that descended from some other
common ancestor. This would in no way disprove evolutionary theory.

- Bob T.

sss1000

.

Relevant Pages