• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which should be taught in school science classes?

Which should be taught in school science classes?


  • Total voters
    84
Those flaws are?

The biggest being the fact that evolution is treated as true when there is no way to prove that X evolved into Y via Z mutations. The links I posted will explain things better as PhD.s were the ones who wrote them. Again, I don't want to derail the thread into an evolution vs creation debate. I merely stated my belief that in schools both theories should be taught.

Several thousand or several billion?

Thousand.
 
I think we would have enough time. Evolution doesn't need to be taught in detail, nor do the others. I would want them discussing the scientific facts between the theories and not simply (there is no God and everything is random) or (God did this one day 2 according to the Bible). There is proof supporting creationism/ID and serious flaws in evolution that go untaught. I think all scientific theories should be discussed in regards to how life formed.

How exactly would you teach all the different theories, including those that I proposed? There is only so much time in each science class and there are mathematically an infinite amount of theories in the different science areas. So do we include the Infinite World Theory in science class? What about Pastafarianism? Aliens? Alien clones as the first humans?

Also, I don't know what you were taught in science class about evolution, but I never heard one of my science teachers flat out state that there wasn't a God or that evolution said that everything was random. In fact, I do remember my science teachers talking about Natural Selection in a way that it could easily have fit in with an ID theory without actually stating as such.

And you will have to give more specifics than just that you have some proof or even a way to prove that God or any higher power created life. Also, you need to provide the specifics for where exactly evolution is wrong and how it affects the results of the theory as a whole.

Creationism is science. It's the scientific theory that God created life. There are scientific proofs supporting it, there are absolutely facts and scientific basis for holding a creationists scientific view point. And yes, I do believe that the earth is several thousand years old based on scientific observation.

What proof exactly do you have? And you need solid proof, not just the Bible or other biblical texts. For instance, if someone found a frozen man and/or woman, that might actually be considered proof that they are Adam and Eve and Creationism is probable. There might be other ways to prove God created life, but you would have to provide specifics for how without relying on anecdotal evidence and that it is possible.
 
Well, considering that educators are faced with time crunches, if you are to teach one aspect, let it be Evolution.
 
There's no reason why all theories cannot be explained and let the kids think for themselves. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
 
As I said. Cut down the time talking about evolution and introduce creationism according to religions and intelligent design. We don't need to go so in depth into evolution, and it shouldn't be the only theory presented (as that falsely implies that it is the only true proven theory).
 
Evolution, and only evolution. It is a valid scientific theory. Intelligent design and creationism are not.
 
The biggest being the fact that evolution is treated as true when there is no way to prove that X evolved into Y via Z mutations. The links I posted will explain things better as PhD.s were the ones who wrote them. Again, I don't want to derail the thread into an evolution vs creation debate. I merely stated my belief that in schools both theories should be taught..

This is not accurate.
 
Anything which innately calls upon the supernatural is not proper realm of science.

Like some random particles that came from...???....suddenly exploded and created millions of galaxies, planets and stars?

Sounds supernatural to me.
 
This is not accurate.

Yes it is, explain how it isn't. We can't prove that X was the common ancestor of Y and Z through A mutations to X's DNA.
 
All the scientific theories would be just evolution.

exactly. dinosaurs didn't die during a great flood. and we are not all descended from Noah, as some would have us believe.
 
The biggest being the fact that evolution is treated as true when there is no way to prove that X evolved into Y via Z mutations. The links I posted will explain things better as PhD.s were the ones who wrote them. Again, I don't want to derail the thread into an evolution vs creation debate. I merely stated my belief that in schools both theories should be taught.



Thousand.

I agree that it is not a 100% fact, but you can't ignore natural selection and the scientifically tested evidence for evolution in general.

Now I don't buy a fish turning into something, something over time and look a dog! But plenty of evidence, backed up by many scientific area's do suggest it is plausible. So much so it is no longer (unlike creation) a hypothesis, but an actual theory.

Creation is not back up by any hard data. Even you own sites say because it does not seem to be possible, it must be creation. I am sorry but science does not work that way.

Science is science and faith is faith.
 
As I said. Cut down the time talking about evolution and introduce creationism according to religions and intelligent design. We don't need to go so in depth into evolution, and it shouldn't be the only theory presented (as that falsely implies that it is the only true proven theory).

I'm absolutely fine with creationism and intelligent design being implemented in the education curriculum, but let it be in the social studies/social science areas.
 
oh, dig, that's not evidence. sorry.

Yes it is. How is it not? You simply saying it isn't evidence doesn't make it true.
 
Yes it is, explain how it isn't. We can't prove that X was the common ancestor of Y and Z through A mutations to X's DNA.

We can show a direct line in most cases from A to Z. We can show how mutations do lead to changes and we can show how nature selects for those changes. Most of that is observable in nature today.
 
exactly. dinosaurs didn't die during a great flood. and we are not all descended from Noah, as some would have us believe.

Actually we are all evolved from some common ancestor even according to evolution.

Also animals were created before man. So dinosaurs probably came and gone long before Adams creation because we have no clue how long a day is to God.
 
Like some random particles that came from...???....suddenly exploded and created millions of galaxies, planets and stars?

Sounds supernatural to me.

Depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about quantum fluctuations, then those are well understood and measured. If you're talking about how the Big Bang started, not much is really known on that at this point. Evidence points to a big bang like event, but not much is known about what predated the big bang.
 
Yes it is. How is it not? You simply saying it isn't evidence doesn't make it true.

because we have proof that our earth is far older than 6000 years, don't we? and trust me, the bible patriarchs didn't live to be 900 years old. if the earth were only 6 thousand years old, we would have so much evidence of that it would be overwhelming. a book (bible) is not evidence, no matter how fervently you believe.
 
Actually we are all evolved from some common ancestor even according to evolution.

Also animals were created before man. So dinosaurs probably came and gone long before Adams creation because we have no clue how long a day is to God.

we are all evolved from some common ancestor........dig's site claims it was noah. and, how do you explain the creationist theory that the earth is 6000 years old, when we have proof it isn't?
 
Depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about quantum fluctuations, then those are well understood and measured. If you're talking about how the Big Bang started, not much is really known on that at this point. Evidence points to a big bang like event, but not much is known about what predated the big bang.

On the big bang: We can say that we have direct evidence of a big bang type event, true? The big bang theory is stil la good theory in that there is no contradictory evidence, but we can also say that the whole of the big bang mechanism(such as the start point) are not, at least yet, known? Would that be accurate?
 
If you're talking about how the Big Bang started, not much is really known on that at this point. Evidence points to a big bang like event, but not much is known about what predated the big bang.

Yet the Big Bang theory is the only theory that I learned in high school about the creation of the universe. Why not share other theories with kids and let them think for themselves?
 
I agree that it is not a 100% fact, but you can't ignore natural selection and the scientifically tested evidence for evolution in general.

Now I don't buy a fish turning into something, something over time and look a dog! But plenty of evidence, backed up by many scientific area's do suggest it is plausible. So much so it is no longer (unlike creation) a hypothesis, but an actual theory.

Creation is not back up by any hard data. Even you own sites say because it does not seem to be possible, it must be creation. I am sorry but science does not work that way.

Science is science and faith is faith.

I'm not ruling out natural selection nor the scientific evidences for evolution. I do believe that evolution is a plausible theory, but not a proven and perfected theory that answers the origin of all species. I also believe that intelligent design and Biblical creationism has evidences supporting it and that both are plausible but not completely proven. It's my personal scientific opinion that Biblical creationism is true, and I base this on scientific evidence and the belief that they are more accurate than those for evolution. I believe in exposing students to both, and allowing both to make up their own minds based on their education and what they know about each theory.

The sites I linked disprove evolution and give supporting evidence for Biblical creationism specifically. They support their beliefs through science just as evolution does. It's not "evolution is false therefore creationism is true." It's "evolution is flawed and here are some supporting evidences for creationism."

because we have proof that our earth is far older than 6000 years, don't we? and trust me, the bible patriarchs didn't live to be 900 years old. if the earth were only 6 thousand years old, we would have so much evidence of that it would be overwhelming. a book (bible) is not evidence, no matter how fervently you believe.

We also have proof that the world is not billions of years old. I don't support the stark 6000 year age, but I do believe the earth is in the thousands of years old. We do have evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, and my links show some of it.
 
Last edited:
There's no reason why all theories cannot be explained and let the kids think for themselves. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?


Should time be devoted to the theory that the Earth is around 6,000 years as some people believe?
 
Back
Top Bottom