quote:
I don't understand why many of you are against having the problems of evolution taught.
We aren't against it. However, we are against teaching falsehoods in science class. Let's go over the ones you listed.
quote:
Some of the problems we've learned were about how mutations are generally harmful and that they never been known to add new information.
Firstly, the fact that harmful and neutral mutations outweigh the number of beneficial mutations is not a problem for the theory of evolution. Because of natural selection, harmful mutations are weeded out of the population, beneficial mutations spread throughout the population, and neutral mutations spread randomly through the population. Hence, there is no problem. However, there is a huge problem with your teacher's understanding of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution.
Secondly, mutations DO add new information to the genome. Take the
nylong bug for example. A mutation in the bacteria caused the creation of a brand new enzyme that was able to digest nylon derivatives found in nylon factories. A new enzyme is new information, and it was caused by a mutation. This supposed problem actually doesn't exist, and I am starting to wonder if you created a fictional classroom here.
quote:
We learned about how it would be impossible for life to really come from nothing.
Firstly, evolution says nothing about how life originated.
Secondly, not one scientist claims that life arose out of nothing. Instead, they claim that life arose through chemical reactions on earth. Molecules and chemical reactions are not "nothing". Again, I am very suspicious that this classroom curiculum is non-existant given the poor understanding of science that went into it.
quote:
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.
The scientific community has no problems with these fossils. The only objections I have ever heard is from creationists with degrees in electrical engineering. And even then, the problems they have with these fossils stems with the conflict between real data and their interpretation of Genesis, really not the best scientific argument I have ever heard.
{quoteWe 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.[/quote]
Firstly, you also weren't taught about how Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, or the Great Spirit could explain anything either.
Secondly, evolution is taught in public science classrooms because it is areligious. It makes no statements about any religion. Evolution is based on evidence, it's theories are cosistent with all objective observations, and evolution is falsified by none of it. Not once in the last sentence did I have to insert a diety. Why is that? Maybe because evolution is not a religion?
quote:
I think its really good that were taught that this theory isn't solid fact, like so many people make it out to be.
And those people that claim evolution is a solid, undeniable fact are not offering a scientific opinion. They are pushing science beyond what it is capable of doing. However, evolution is so well supported that scientists base their work on it, and work well it does. Name one scientist using creationism today that has made an earth shattering discovery. The answer is none. According to you, we should abandon a model that works for one that doesn't work. Sounds ludicrous to me.
quote:
So whats the problem with learning both sides to the argument????
Nothing. I have learned quite a bit about creationists and their theories over the last few years. The problem is presenting this in a science class of impressionable youths, therefore giving the impression that creationism has a leg to stand on when in fact it is only supported by religious faith. However, creationism would be fine if it was included in a comparative religions course.
™ Version 4.2