HELP!!! Evolution essay help needed. Not a debate please.

[ericamanda01]

I need your help. I am writing my final essay for my Philosophy class and I need more opinions.

1. Do you think that evolution should be taught in schools?

2. If yes, why? If not, why?

3. Also do you think that religion should be taught as a therory along with evolution?

I am not asking these questions to start a debate I really just need more input from anyone that might be directly affected by these programs for schools. Thanks in advance!

 

[Disney Doll]

1. Yes, because it has a provable scientific basis behind it.
2. See #1
3. Probably not, because someone will make a big stink about separation of church and state. If it is a religous-based school, then I believe it's OK to teach Creation,because it is a religious principle.

 

[monarchsfan16]

1. Absolutely
2. It's science. There are facts to prove it. Evolution is taught in science class. Enough said
3. As a student when the topic of religious theories have come up it has been awkward. We're not overly religious. I certainly realize and have no problem with the fact that everyone has their own beliefs and all that. But if it's a public school even the mentioning of religious theories should not be there. In a school like mine there are a wide variety of beliefs (everything from Muslim, to Hindu, to Jewish to Christian) and it's just awkward. Better to teach science since that's based on fact. Obviously in a religious school religious teaching is fine

 

[Wishing on a star]

First answer, YES, because it is a commonly accepted THEORY. (It really does not have any unrefutable evidence to back it up.) While I think that it is Okay that this is taught, It should be taught as THEORY. There is no way to say that ANYONE knows this as 'fact'.

2 + 2 = 4 - fact- known to always be true without any question
evolution - theory - not known to always be true without any question

Second, Then, since this should be taught as 'theory' (common belief), it is perfectly acceptable, and even should be expected/demanded, that other common beliefs be covered as well.

 

[auntpolly]

1. Do you think that evolution should be taught in schools?

2. If yes, why? If not, why?

3. Also do you think that religion should be taught as a therory along with evolution?

!. yes
2.It's a science - science should be part of a public school education.
3.not hand in hand. but it couldn't hurt to explain to kids what some people believe. as long as all beliefs are covered.

JMO, as usual!

 

[SherryNC]

1. Yes
2. I agree as stated above to teach it as theory.
3. I wouldn't say no, but that can get complicated. Personally, I would prefer my own children learn about our religion at our church. However, I am not opposed to other religions and their beliefs being "discussed" at school.

 

[bicker]

I agree. The soundest science should be the basis of superior scientific education, and providing our children with a superior scientific education will help keep our nation strong and prosperous well into the future.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching comparative religions in schools, exposing our children to religions other than their own, including -- and perhaps most importantly -- the religions that aren't well-represented in our nation, so we can better understand the world, and therefore maintain friendlier and more peaceful relationships with the rest of the world. However, comparative religions should be taught "along with" other aspects of culture, social studies, etc., not with any regard to science.

 

[chadfromdallas]

I need your help. I am writing my final essay for my Philosophy class and I need more opinions.

1. Do you think that evolution should be taught in schools?

2. If yes, why? If not, why?

3. Also do you think that religion should be taught as a therory along with evolution?

1. Absolutely.

2. Evolution is Science. It is an ongoing "evolving" theory ever growing with knowledge as we gain even more facts.

3. Religion is not and does not have any backing to belong anywhere near evolution. Not only does it not have any facts, it lacks any credibility what so ever, whereas evolution is made up OF facts. Facts being the basis of all science, it wouldn't make sense to teach something so unproven as religion.

 

[SherryNC]

1. Absolutely.

2. Evolution is Science. It is an ongoing "evolving" theory ever growing with knowledge as we gain even more facts.

3. Religion is not and does not have any backing to belong anywhere near evolution. Not only does it not have any facts, it lacks any credibility what so ever, whereas evolution is made up OF facts. Facts being the basis of all science, it wouldn't make sense to teach something so unproven as religion.

I don't care if this is a serious post, I still choose the funny pic.

 

[chadfromdallas]

I don't care if this is a serious post, I still choose the funny pic.

 

[SherryNC]

Oh, and evolution makes me think of frogs. I miss him. That guy with the tongue always startles me.

 

[JeanJoe]

There actually is the popular misconception about what "science" is, and when something is a "theory."

All of science is about gathering evidence and then putting forward the best possible "theory" that explains, or at least is consistent with, all known evidence.

When Isaac Newton first wanted to describe gravity, it was the "Theory of gravitation." Now clearly, gravity is a "fact", but describing it, at first, was just a theory. When more and more evidence was collected, it was all consistent with the equations he described. So, was the "Theory of gravitation" now the "Fact of gravitation"?

Perhaps. Then some guy with bad hair named Einstein came along and predicted that time, space, and gravitation would interact in weird, non-common-sense ways, and as people got more adept at measuring things, it became clear that Newtonian physics was incomplete. So, what was accepted as "fact" for centuries was not quite correct.

Evolution. A huge amount of evidence supports its being correct. Is it a "fact"? No, but being a "theory" doesn't make it unbelievable either. And even though evolution was presented a "theory" more than a century ago simply based on observations of what different animals separated on different islands looked like, the fact that molecular biology and DNA sequencing have all confirmed its plausability should be very convincing support for evolution.

So, all this long rant is trying to get across is that all science is "theory", but some theories are so well supported that to dismiss it as just a "theory" shows a complete disregard for attempting to discover "truth" by collecting evidence.

 

[Beth76]

1. Yes
2. Because it's science
3. No. I would be fine with a world history religion class (as an elective, not as requirement), but not to go along with the theory of evolution.

As of now, you're not likely to get very impartial answers. Most of the religious people are probably at church on a Sunday morning.

 

[auntpolly]

So, all this long rant is trying to get across is that all science is "theory", but some theories are so well supported that to dismiss it as just a "theory" shows a complete disregard for attempting to discover "truth" by collecting evidence.

Yeah, but there's a formula, isn't there, for scientifically "proving" a theory? (It's been awhile since I've thought about this; forgive me if I'm off)

My point was that science should be part of the public school education and that since religious theories can't be proven with that same scientific formula, the place to learn them would be churches.

 

[bgirldeb]

1. Do you think that evolution should be taught in schools?

Yes, I think evolution should be taught in schools as a scientific theory.

2. If yes, why? If not, why?

Because I believe in being well educated on things, so if you were to make the decision betweeen, say, evolution and creation, you could do so having the most accurate information.

3. Also do you think that religion should be taught as a therory along with evolution?

I don't think that religion should be taught in relation to evolution. The place for that sort of belief process should be taught in the home. I DO think that a class/series of classes learning about different religions would be beneficial, and even help for people to be more tolerant of others' beliefs, or even examine their own beliefs more closely.

Oh, and speaking of Albert Einstein:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein.

 

[Sparx]

1. Do you think that evolution should be taught in schools?

yes

2. If yes, why? If not, why?

It is science, and should be taught right along side math, english, and history.

3. Also do you think that religion should be taught as a therory along with evolution?

No, I don't. Religion has nothing backing it up, evolution does.

Oh, and evolution makes me think of frogs. I miss him. That guy with the tongue always startles me.

I love Chad's avatar! It makes me smile! But I am just weird like that.

 

[jimmiej]

I need your help. I am writing my final essay for my Philosophy class and I need more opinions.

1. Do you think that evolution should be taught in schools?

Yes.

2. If yes, why? If not, why?

Humans have a natural desire to know how we got here.

3. Also do you think that religion should be taught as a therory along with evolution?

No, but students should be told there are other theories/beliefs as to how we got here, religious & otherwise. It should be left at that.

 

[bicker]

Yeah, but there's a formula, isn't there, for scientifically "proving" a theory? (It's been awhile since I've thought about this; forgive me if I'm off)

Many theories cannot be proven based on application of method -- rather some can be proven only through application of technology that we haven't developed yet.

Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravitation (technically "universal gravitational attraction") is not "proven" and indeed it has been replaced with what is considered a theory that is more scientifically sound, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Science is all about learning more, replacing each theory with a better theory. Scientists respect the work of the predecessors, respect the old knowledge, but that respect implies working to improve upon that old knowlege, not treating any knowledge as a sacred cow.

 

[minkydog]

Blah, blah, blah...if this is for our philosophy paper, then you better get off the DIS and get to work. The only opinion that matters is yours. so get cracking!

 

[ericamanda01]

Blah, blah, blah...if this is for our philosophy paper, then you better get off the DIS and get to work. The only opinion that matters is yours. so get cracking!

Actually for my paper I was given the option of gathering opinions to futher expand my paper. But thanks so much for your input!