The debate "Evolution should only be taught in schools as only a theory because that's what it is" was started by
March 8, 2015, 9:17 am.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 27 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
I_Voyager posted 1 argument, Cody posted 6 arguments, nick_parrott posted 1 argument, frozen_emily posted 1 argument, danielle posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
daddytone716 posted 1 argument, liamjosephcash posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 5 arguments, I_Voyager posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
Cody, Kirito, true_debate_life, Egert_Clueless, nick_parrott, alicemcguire, ncitramanda, danielle, frozen_emily, LDebatorChamp, DavidStuff777, ItsMateo and 14 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, rickrollross, PsychDave, daddytone716, liamjosephcash, ScorpionHan, CX_LD_Ashley, mdavis1309, Tassja, PathwayHomeFan, misfitcarrot, stantinou93 and 15 visitors disagree.
theories may be just theories however evolution is one that there huge amounts of evidence for, it's not a theory that you can challenge these days. therefore in schools if you want to teach what is true then yes evolution should be the only thing that's taught. as for god creating all the animals.... evolution has pretty much proved that that's not even possible!!
I lived my life being told by teachers its only a theory
Cody, what happens if a country breaks up (as the Soviet Union did) or if two countries merge? Did geography teachers lie to their students? Teaching is about providing the best, most accurate information possible to students. Right now, for human development, that is evolution. As Voyager said, if there is proof that evolution is wrong, provide it. Give us something to work with so that it doesn't look like you are just spouting your opinion.
As for the "lied to millions of children" I've never felt comfortable with this line of reasoning. It's used all over the place, from atheists to Christians and beyond to attack eachother. But if I believe I am telling you the truth, and that is an objective state within the person, the person is not lying. Lying includes the intent to lie. Otherwise, I am misinforming; if down the chain of shared misinformation there is a lie, only the person who started the lie is lying. If there is never a liar because we are misinterpreting the nature of reality, it is not a lie, just a misunderstanding, and misunderstanding creates misinformation without ever lying.
If a better theory explains the evidence, and it is disproven, then we should naturally change the way we educate. We teach what appears to be true in the moment. Evolution is apparently a fact, the explanation is a theory, as I've said. I don't mind seeking out evidence to support evolution in the course of this conversation, but if you believe it's been disproven I'd appreciate evidence. From what I understand though the best arguments against evolution emerge from philosophy, which is not a disproof, just a thought structure of one kind or another. Not to say I don't enjoy philosophy, but it's usually wrong when it isn't aligned with a scientific or material worldview.
It's not a law. Yet children are taught that it is fact. What if it's ever disproven? (which it has been). Then we've lied to millions of children.
Yes. Exactly. So you proved my whole argument. The aspect of the natural world exists, we observe it through the scientific method, and construct a theory to explain the evidence. Such as observing generations of bacteria in a controlled environment, and observing the change in it's genes, and the correlation between the change in its genes an a new adaption to its environment.
We can't confirm in a short time that a human can evolve over a million years. But we know that evolution is happening, from above, from geological records, fossil evidence, and modern observations of life. Like in QM we account for it in our biological science, and that accounting allows us to keep up with the adaption in virus life. So we can't construct a "law of evolution" or state it as a law. But to say there is no evidence, and that it's just one in a series of competing valid theories is false. The phenomenon exists, our ability to confirm exactly how through observation is too limited to go beyond calling it a theory. That our explanation of it is a theory is how it should be taught, of a factual phenomenon. The words "this should be taught as a theory is true". The spirit "this is an idea you shouldn't count on as worthwhile, plausible, even probable, and the religious explanation is just as good" is false.
Here's the definition of a scientific theory
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
The key part is, "Confirmed through observation," evolution can't be observed. Neither can the Big Bang. We can, however, observe gravity and thernodynamics, and planetary motion. which is why they are laws and not still theories.
Saying "there isn't evidence" is evidence for one of two theories - you're a troll or an idiot. I don't have to pull this out of my ass, it appears before me on the screen.
You are confusing opinions for theories. It is my opinion you're an ass; it's my theory you're an idiot.
"So anyone can just pull a theory out of their butt as long as there's no evidence against it?? What if there's no evidence actually proving it?" (Ignores all the evidence to say there is no evidence)
"A theory is not something that is true, it is something that may or may not be true because it hasn't been proven. " (Misread my argument, doesn't know wtf I'm saying)
"So, what is the proof? They haven't found the missing link to prove evolution, and they haven't found dark matter to prove the Big Bang. I didn't say that there was evidence of God. I'm saying that neither can be proven." (Doesn't research the topic, aligns ones self with other views for the joy of conflict, doesn't say there is a God, but capitalizes the "G" in acceptance of a convention only justified by the religion, and them uses a subjective argument of "you don't know otherwise because I haven't said so" to control the situation.)
Hypothesis' emerge out of peoples' asses or in response to preceding observations. Testing and observations there-in produces new results. The results are compiled and theories are formed to explain the way the evidence emerges from the hypothesis. Repeat often, in different places, and with by many people from many countries. Adjust the theory given new evidence. The more evidence you have, the more certain you are the object of your observation is a phenomenon of a specific kind. We know quantum mechanics happens, we don't know why. We cannot not believe it because there is too much evidence from testing to show quantum phenomenon, and we can make machines on those principles that work. We still can't explain it and so call it "quantum theory". A factual event with theoretical explanation. The ability of the theory to explain the evidence may vary, and only competing theories that better explain the wealth of evidence can suffice. You got a better theory? Then stop posting two-line piles of bull-shit, disseminate the MOUNDS of evidence and prove me wrong. I'll ignore anything else you say from now on, and encourage everyone to do the same, unless you can prove wrong my preceding theory by providing evidence for your poorly formed opinion using the genius you don't have.
That is what several people, and years of research, has been trying to tell you. There is evidence. There is studies of animals, fossil records, experiments with quickly reproducing organisms, and genetic research. There is piles of research available that does a very good job of explaining how species change over many generations to be better adapted to survive. Screaming prove it to me doesn't accomplish anything if you then turn around and ignore the proof.
With regards to the actual question (as opposed to the implied question) yes, anyone can create a theory as long as it doesn't contradict evidence. In order for it to become am accepted theory like evolution or gravity, it need to make specific, testable predictions. It is through these predictions that we can verify whether the theory is a food one or not. Every time evolution has been put to the test, it has been shown to be accurate. People keep raising objections and trying to create flaws and researchers keep solving and explaining them.
If you are open to learning about evolution, there is a lot of resources available. If you have already decided that nothing anyone can say will change your mind, that shows that you are a closed minded person, at which point there is no point debating it with you. I don't know you so I honestly can't say which category you fall into, but if you have evidence that contradicts evolution, please post it because I do try to keep an open mind and would like the opportunity to look into it.
So anyone can just pull a theory out of their butt as long as there's no evidence against it?? What if there's no evidence actually proving it?
Gravity is in the same boat but you wouldn't jump off a building, right?
There are two different definitions of a theory. One is used in everyday life to mean an educated guess. The other is the scientific definition. A scientific theory is only valid if it has never had evidence contradict it. Think of it like a test that you have to get 100% on to pass. But even if you finish, people can add new questions and, if you don't get 100% on those too, you still fail. Evolution is a theory because there is no evidence that contradicts it. If there ever is, there will need to be a new theory, but people intentionally, misunderstanding what a theory actually is doesn't accomplish anything and just demonstrates that you don't have any real argument in your favor.
A theory is not something that is true, it is something that may or may not be true because it hasn't been proven. Evolution will never become scientific law because it will lack the evidence. there isn't evidence.
A theory is not something which may or may not be true. It's a phenomenon which is definitely true, but which we don't fully understand nor can fully explain yet. Evolution DEFINITELY happens. Evolution is a fact. But we have only observed parts of it and we can only explain or predict parts of it, and because of that our scientific state of knowledge and explanation is theoretical. We have a theoretical understanding of a factual event. Gravity happens, our understanding is limited of it; we have a theory of gravity to explain the fact of gravity. Evolution definitely happens; we have a theory of evolution to explain the fact of evolution.
Fossil evidence displays a similarity in form, minus certain features or traits, dating back to the earliest known ancestors. This is not just a matter of human evolution, which is only a part of the evidence. There is evidence of brain development over time, evidence for certain kinds of brain regions appearing at certain times, or for brains, mammals, or insects appearing at certain times. Most of the fossils can be dated by a number of methods, from its position in geological layers to the presence of certain chemicals, and after testing these myriad testing methods we've found obvious patterns which hypothesis' predicted, either that we would/could find a certain fossil at a given space given evolutionary evidence from geological surveys. We've decoded the genomes of innumerable species' and have found evidence for a common ancestry in most life. There is an minimum 86% genetic similarity between all life, and the differences for all living life are encompassed in those 14%, and those differences can be compared. We can also test the theory in the modern day by observing the breeding of species over time and checking their genes for changes. In macro species this is difficult; in strains of e-coli it is easy. After thousands of generations, there are definite genetic changes between diverged families which had the same origin, including new genes which selected for new abilities that increased the survival rate of the species. And this is only a summary and fragment for the amount of evidence and predictive power of evolution.
And there is no missing link. We know the human evolutionary history. There's a line of fossil evidence that covers in a straight line from us, back four million years.
We discipline ourselves enough to call it a theory because we cannot model the evolutionary event over time to the n'th degree. But it's only the "theory of virus transfer" or the "theory of gravity". Have sex with an AIDS victim and jump of a cliff and come tell me about the invalidity of things called "theories".
As for Psychdave's question, it's just a matter of clicky circumstance. Long-story short, I voted cheekily, decided to make an argument, and then changed my vote accordingly.
Cody, asking about the missing link only proves you don't know anything about the topic. The "missing link" has been found many times. It is impossible to find remains of every individual that has ever lived, so there will never be a complete chain of skeletons to line up. Even if there were, you would ask for remains one step further and) back that what we have. What we have is evidence of change over time from very primitive forms to modern humans.
To make it easier to understand, I will give a modern equivalent to the "missing link" problem. Imagine a man has accused his wife of having an affair and told her to prove it. She can show proof of where she was when she bought groceries, when she got gas for the car, if they have access they could even review security cameras to see where she went. Inevitably though there will be pieces of time that cannot be proven. When she was at home, there are no records of what she was doing. If she visited a friends house, there will be no evidence that nothing happened. No matter how honest, and how though someone leaves a paper trail, there will never be 100% of their day accounted for. That's the problem with the "missing link". We can show points that, when connected, show the progression, but to ask that someone show every step from single cell organism to you sitting at your keyboard means that all of your ancestors would need to be on a museum wall or else they become the missing link.
About your lack of knowledge of any evidence of dark matter, that is at the bleeding edge of science, meaning it is so advanced that researchers are looking into it. There are theories, which are being put to the test to see how accurate they are, but nothing definite. If you want information on them, look up the research of the Higs Boson possibly decaying into dark matter being done at CERN. Like I said, this one is still being looked into, but not so long ago nuclear physics would have been in the same boat.
there is plenty of proof. literally books upon books of proof. when thinking about the question, people need to remember that a theory doesnt mean that its a guess, a theory means that it is an explanation for the mounds of evidence available on that topic. evolution can not be disproven, however it also can not be 100% proven and written out in stone. so yes, it should be taught as a theory but that shouldnt be misconstrued as being taught as if it were a shot in the dark.
So, what is the proof? They haven't found the missing link to prove evolution, and they haven't found dark matter to prove the Big Bang. I didn't say that there was evidence of God. I'm saying that neither can be proven.
Cody, the Big Bang has testable predictions that can be investigated and have been. There is actual evidence of the Big Bang. I'm not knocking religion, but you are mistaken if you think there is as much proof of God as of the Big Bang.
Voyager, I'm just curious why you voted that evolution shouldn't be taught as fact but are defending evolution.
There's just as much evidence of the big nothing explosion otherwise known as the Big Bang THEORY, as there is of an omnipotent being creating everything like the Christians believe.
'Just a theory' just proves you don't understamd what a theory is. It's just a theory that my senses are truely experiencing the world, but I regard it as a fact because it predicts a lot about what's going on around me.
a scientific theory is a model with predictive untility and widthstands scrutiny because it has such a large body of evidence. eg natural selection, atomic theory, theory of gravitation, germ theory, cell theory . . . . .
so in a way what your saying is a student shouldn't be held back in a grade if they fail science because in a way most science is just theories?