Why not teach problems with ToE in school?

In regular high school biology in public schools in NYS, we're taught evolution and also the many problems with the evolution theory. Some of the problems we've learned were about how mutations are generally harmful and that they never been known to add new information. We learned about how it would be impossible for life to really come from nothing. We also learned about how there are problems with the apes that are supposed to link them with humans, although I don't remember what exactly we went over, I will try to find my notes. We weren't taught about how god or the Bible could explain anything because we can't deal with religion in school, although I feel evoltuion is pretty much religion. I don't understand why many of you are against having the problems of evolution taught. I think its really good that were taught that this theory isn't solid fact, like so many people make it out to be. So whats the problem with learning both sides to the argument????This message has been edited by tubi417, 07-18-2004 12:02 PM

fixed it

The whole point of this thread isn't to talk about the many evidences that disprove evolution, but to talk about why it would be a bad thing for people in school to be taught these evidences.

We were taught the theory and then we were taught that theres problems with the theory. We only really spent one class going over the problems...we spent about 3 weeks going over evolution. On the regents exam we weren't tested on the problems with the theory.At the end of the year we had to do a research project on something we did in biology and the thing I did the project on was problems with evolution because I had never known there were any problems with it and i had always accepted it/not really thought about it and i thought that this was really interesting.

Sorry, I meant to say that most mutations are NOT benefical. Yes the majority of them are neutral, but it seems like the bad mutations out weigh the good mutation. Name some beneficial human mutations besides that stupid muscular german kid that has shown up a lot on this forum. You could probably name A LOT more diseases caused by mutations than you could name good things that have come from mutations, if you could name any. Could you name any mutations that have been known to give entirely new information, instead of just doubling existing information, although most mutations just delete information.

"Refer to Message 7 (Thread Problems with the first life in Forum Origin of Life) for a grossly simplified explanation of the current abiogenesis theory."You didn't expain in that message that besides creating only 2% organic molecules, he also created 85% tar and 13% carboxlic acid. This would have killed any life that could have formed, although this experiment really does not prove at all that life was formed like that. If we do some how create life in a laboratory, although I really doubt that that will happen, it would only prove that intelligent life could create life."Here is a suggestion, go on to college and take at least 2 bio classes before you make such a judgement. Just remember to get higher grades than C's."Evolution explains the origins of everything just like any religion such as christianity, or hinduism.

"blatant lies borrowed from creationists."And some of these lies are????

"If we use natural processes to make life"We can argue about that after we make life...."Again, you're cute, but that's just plain false. Evolution is not an origins myth. It's a narrative of the development of life on Earth, post-biogenesis. It has nothing to do with origins."really? because a lot of people on this forum argue that our origins are from some chemical reaction.

I don't know much about this Human Hemoglobin C. explain it to me.What are some examples of mutations that add entirely new information?

what does he say that are lies?

abiogenesis and evolution are often put together

Does this Hovind guy have a website?