Should The Theory of Evolution be Taught in Schools?

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

victoria wrote: "@ash

gish galloping and moving the goal post. asking more questions than we can physically answer at once and making these questions more and more obscure"

i think i had an aneurysm trying to read that first part 😨

[Tessie, Assistant Moderator]

I hate this debate because no offense to creationists but it always goes like ‘well it could’ve started like this’ ‘well how did this start’ ‘like this’ ‘well that had to have a beginning too’ ‘why do you think that’ ‘because everything needed a creator’ ‘no it started like this, what started your creator’ ‘nooooo God is eternal’ and we can debate against that because it’s a religious opinion with no evidence for or against it.

[Syd]

I was just genuinely answering your questions, you asked where did God come from and I answered that He didn't come from anywhere. I wasn't trying to move the goal posts, I was answering your questions. This topic isn't about whether or not evolution is true, its about whether it should be taught, and I think it should be but as a theory, not as an absolute

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

But why should a theory with no evidence be taught in schools? I think students should be made aware of it, and if they choose to believe in it they can research further

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

And again, unless its in mathematics NO scientific theory can be proven. Theories are just explanations for the observed facts, and currently evolution is the only theory that explains every single piece of evidence we have.

[Syd]

Hazel (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "But why should a theory with no evidence be taught in schools? I think students should be made aware of it, and if they choose to believe in it they can research further"

yes I agree, I'm FOR teaching it guys. Just wanna make that clear lol

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

i find it difficult to consider this a debate when there is a lack of evidence from the opposing side. victoria has been up and at it explaining clearly and breaking things down and i have yet to see anything even a fraction of what she's giving, from the creationist perspective. you are providing beliefs, not evidence, but claiming we cannot do the same and i find that a bit confusing.

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

One thing I have noticed is a lot of people dismiss the creationist theory purely because its religious, which I think is unfair. We should treat it as a scientific theory, go through the facts and decided whether or not its valid based on evidence, not opinion

[Syd]

ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "i find it difficult to consider this a debate when there is a lack of evidence from the opposing side. victoria has been up and at it explaining clearly and breaking things down and i have yet to s..."

I appreciate her for doing that. That's why I'm no longer debating whether or not evolution is true because I don't have any evidence, I have yet to research this topic fully. I agree that evolution should be taught in schools and that's my stance on the matter. Even though I don't agree with it, I still believe it should be taught

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

Hazel (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "One thing I have noticed is a lot of people dismiss the creationist theory purely because its religious, which I think is unfair. We should treat it as a scientific theory, go through the facts and..."

i agree with hazel, and i believe that treating it as a scientific possibility means being able to provide scientific evidence and backing, of which i have seen none today

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

I just skimmed through and Faith, it looks like we just asked you for evidence backing up your claims and instead you turned around and started asking us questions about our beliefs instead of giving us your evidence. Please provide that.

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

I think I'm going to do more research on the evidence of creationism so that my whole debates against it is more valid. You can't debate against something you don't fully understand

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

Sydney wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "where did god come from?"

that's the thing. He always was. I'm not trying to back that up with scientific evidence because I can't. God is outside of science so He doesn't ..."

Science is the study of everything in the world and how it works. Something cannot be outside of science. If you are making a huge claim like a god existing, it needs to be able to be studied and proved. You cannot make that claim and then excuse having proof for it being "outside of science".

(Hope this isn't rude)

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "Sydney wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "where did god come from?"

that's the thing. He always was. I'm not trying to back that up with scientific evidence because I can't. God is outside of science..."

👏

[Syd]

Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "Sydney wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "where did god come from?"

that's the thing. He always was. I'm not trying to back that up with scientific evidence because I can't. God is outside of science..."

But I mean He is, that's why He's God, I'm not trying to prove His existence right now but I was answering how God came into being, and the answer is He didn't. If God was created then He wouldn't be God. If God wasn't outside of space and time and science then He wouldn't be God. The creation of Adam and Eve shows how He is outside of science, He made Adam out of dust and Eve from a bone. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. I'm not going to try and prove that these are all facts, but that is biblical proof on why I say He is outside of science.

[Syd]

Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "Sydney wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "where did god come from?"

that's the thing. He always was. I'm not trying to back that up with scientific evidence because I can't. God is outside of science..."

and sorry I wasn't trying to make any claim, I was asked a question and that was my genuine answer, I wasn't trying to prove that God is outside of science or anything

[Syd]

science is also defined as the behavior of the physical and natural world. God is not physical or natural, He is supernatural and spiritual, therefore He doesn't adhere to scientific rules

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

sorry why are you censoring god 😭 just wondering. also if he wants to do something he can, does he not want care about all the suffering and cruelty in the world? why doesn't he do anything about it?

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Well as a religious girl I believe that G-d created the world as it is and that He made all those “proofs” either for function or whatever reason (He didn’t share with me lol). I believe that G-d i..."

So you think all the evidence for evolution was actually put there by Him on purpose, so they don't actually prove evolution ?
I'm just trying to underdtsnd

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

Sydney wrote: "Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "Sydney wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "where did god come from?"

that's the thing. He always was. I'm not trying to back that up with scientific evid..."

I see, sorry.

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Ah I see

[Syd]

@barnette you’re good 😊 no need to apologize

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "It’s not censoring. I don’t write the full name of Him so we write it with a dash"

i've only heard jewish people refer to god as yahweh, hashem, and another much longer term that i can't remember right now, but i think it's something like tettragematon? i'm sorry if that's wrong, but either way, i don't see how that translated to g-d? or is g-d used as a way to avoid like disrespect? this is a genuine question by the way, lol, i genuinely have not seen this before

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Hazel (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Well as a religious girl I believe that G-d created the world as it is and that He made all those “pr..."

well i don't really consider it an opposing side when your argument is 'i don't care', while you have the right to believe what you want, absolutely, you have no validity in this specific discussion.

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

HaShem translates directly to 'The Name' in old hebrew i think?. and yes it does, thank you! i know many people avoid saying god, but i hadn't heard of people saying it by putting a dash in between, that's why i was confused. thanks again!

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Hazel (my girlfriend's version) wrote: "bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Well as a religious g..."

but you're not providing an argument against it, when you don't consider the opposing side, your words are immedietly discounted. if i said i don't think steak tastes good because i don't eat meat and i don't care about it, does that make any sense?

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Hazel (my girlfriend's version) wrote..."

“i don’t care about proof of evolution” this is discrounting.
also we’re in a debate group,,,in a debate topic,,,yes every post is an argument

[maya ۶ৎ⋆.]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Hazel (my girlfriend's version) wrote..."

uh yeah it kind of does, i mean it's literally a debate group and that's what we do in a debate topic 😭

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

Faith wrote: "I'm not a scientist but from what I've seen, there's quite a lot of evidence for a creationist view of science that is often overlooked as "religion." I think schools should present the evidence an..."

honestly i kind of agree with this. even if i 100% believe in evolution, the origin of life and stuff is still kinda fuzzy. kids should be taught both sides.

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

victoria wrote: "there are actually scientific theories for that!
there are three theories.

protocell-first theory:
a theory that cell like compartments (like vesicles you see in cells) occurred spontaneously wit..."

i honestly really like the primordial soup theory, just because it makes a lot of sense. (https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/o...) please read this article, it's actually really easy to follow and it makes a lot of great points.

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

Faith wrote: "Where did those fatty acids and molecules come from?"

the "primordial soup theory". basically in an environment like earth's was when life began, these molecules would have naturally formed.

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

oh dang i just realized there's four pages to this thing 😭 um i was replying to really old posts lol

[alex (a poor pirate)]

um yeah we should teach evolution???
y’all really be acting like we don’t know this is real, but girl you’re not a freaking scientist…
also comparing not teaching religion to not teaching evolution is kinda wild lmao
like girl those are two COMPLETELY different things

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

i also like want to add that evolution is a scientific theory supported by biology which is why it's taught in science/biology, maybe we can stress the fact that it's a theory and not 100% proven yet but it has a place, it has evidence like take fuckng penguins they also evolved that's why we have so many different types of them, but where would be teach the theory of creationism? what theory would be teach? there are many different religions with different beliefs are you saying we should only teach christianity? like for the people saying we should teach 'both' what do you define as both, why should we do that and how do you propose we go by that

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

alex (a poor pirate) wrote: "um yeah we should teach evolution???
y’all really be acting like we don’t know this is real, but girl you’re not a freaking scientist…
also comparing not teaching religion to not teaching evolution..."

wait yeah basically this 😭😭

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

I was thinking about this more, and I think evolution should be taught to everyone learning biology. Even if you don’t think it’s true, people should still get the chance to be educated about it. Creationism I think should be acknowledged. Just like when I was learning about the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory was acknowledged and then all of the evidence against and for it was given so I could make my own conclusion.
But, on the other hand, why should it be taught? I’m sure there are many different theories other than evolution, so why should creationism be mentioned? Honestly I’m kind of conflicted -I don’t think a theory with practically no solid evidence for it should be taught instead of evolution, but it still is a theory that could possibly be true, so surely it should be at least mentioned.

[Faith]

Like I said, I think all of the evidence from both sides should be presented and kids should think for themselves. The school system should teach kids how to be critical thinkers, not what to think. May the best idea win.

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

Faith wrote: "Like I said, I think all of the evidence from both sides should be presented and kids should think for themselves. The school system should teach kids how to be critical thinkers, not what to think..."

What are "both" sides? The Christian perspective and the scientific perspective? What about all the other religions and their theories and explanations for the creation of the universe - by your logic we should teach all of them too?

[ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ]

literally, what barnette said and i mentioned earlier, are we ONLY talking about christian creationsim? what is both sides?

[livi]

I think that teaching the most up to date scientific knowledge and theories should be common sense. With all due respect to religion, expecting religious beliefs to be taught in science classes is unreasonable. Social studies, sure. But I want to learn about facts in my biology class and I’m glad my teacher presents us with those. The theory of relativity is still a theory. But it’s the most up to date knowledge we have, so it’s taught in schools. Same with evolution.

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "So why should that be taught in a class that’s based on facts?"

What should we teach kids then? It's the most researched and supported theory we have, even if it's not *fact* it's the closest we have.

[livi]

That’s why I mentioned the theory of relativity. Or there’s math theories. Or theories in physics. But even though they’re theories, there is evidence supporting them and that’s the general consensus of the scientific community. presenting the most up to date theory with its supporting evidence is what you do when there isn’t definitive proof. And there’s evidence (loads, even just from my own reading and classes I’ve taken) for evolution. I’ve yet to see any convincing non religious evidence for creationism.

[Ava (matching with the BAAAM fam)]

it definatly should be

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Ah but the theory of evolution isn’t a fact either. Only a theory"

not trying to attack you but all important concepts in science are theories, take cell theory or whatever it's not proven nothing is but it's still fundamental

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

livi 🍉 wrote: "That’s why I mentioned the theory of relativity. Or there’s math theories. Or theories in physics. But even though they’re theories, there is evidence supporting them and that’s the general consens..."

this!

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

the theory of evolution should definitely be taught, but it should be acknowledged that the origin of life is still a mystery and we should encourage students to think critically.

[Sai :), Assistant Moderator]

yeah, especially bc a lot of things around it are still super fuzzy

[livi]

@sai yep!! Teaching critical thinking is important but teaching evolution is needed for many fundamentals in biology
@bibliophile I agree that it should be acknowledged that it’s still a theory and definitely not just presented as definitive fact because we’re definitely missing plenty of pieces of the puzzle that are impossible to figure out

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

bibliophile [semi ia][no longer accepting frqs] wrote: "Ah but the theory of evolution isn’t a fact either. Only a theory"

The theory of evolution CANT be proven, just like the theory of gravity or the theory of subatomic particles, the theory of electromagnetism etc etc. Except in math, theories can’t be proven in science. That doesn’t mean it’s less valid, or that it shouldn’t be taught.

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

But then again, evolution is a fact, just not the theory. Fruit flies and E-coli have been observed to evolve, so it is a fact lol. The theory of evolution isn’t, because they’re not the same thing.