Teaching About Evolution.

[Chris1]

Has anyone considered teaching Evolution?

Why is it so important to teach evolution? After all, many questions in biology can be answered without mentioning evolution: How do birds fly? How can certain plants grow in the desert? Why do children resemble their parents? Each of these questions has an immediate answer involving aerodynamics, the storage and use of water by plants, or the mechanisms of heredity. Students ask about such things all the time.

The answers to these questions often raise deeper questions that are sometimes asked by students: How did things come to be that way? What is the advantage to birds of flying? How did desert plants come to differ from others? How did an individual organism come to have its particular genetic endowment? Answering questions like these requires a historical context—a framework of understanding that recognizes change through time.

Basic details here:

http://www.geocities.com/plecoboy88/Evolution.html

[Mandy]

That is a brilliant question and since I am a Christian, I don't teach evolution to my son at all. Instead I teach creationism, directly from the bible. It makes sense, especially since Darwin has been disproved, I want to teach my child what I believe to be correct. If you are looking for a fantastic series, or you want some bits on creationism, google Ken Ham. He has made books for kids. If you want bits, I changed the books into bits and would be happy to share them with you. It is taught it a factual, scientific way using Genesis as the basic foundation.

[Skylark]

Would be great if you will share the Creationism bits with all of us, Mandy!

I know for teens, there are great materials on http://www.drdino.com/, because I used those materials to teach Creation vs Evolution classes. ( There are videos, seminars, classes, workbook, also great section with questions and answers, with lots of links to scientific evidence, which is great for teaching)

We also teach Creationism, it is very easy, simple, explainable, straight from the Bible and supported by scientific evidence. No need to come up with theories for everything, like in Evolution theory  , just to teach the kid next year that those theories were disproofed 

Some fun parts can be taken also from this awesome documentary "The Priviledged Planet" http://www.privilegedplanet.com/  It is not made for kids ( very good for teens and adults), but some facts and POI can be taken from there for teaching younger children, I think ( I am planning to do it in a little while, but not for the next few months just yet  )

And this is another good documentary http://www.illustramedia.com/cfacinfo.htm , by Lee Strobel by Illustra Media

In any case, will be great if you can share the bits that you have created! K2U!

[Kimba15]

I think this is an interesting debate.

I will be teaching my daughter both evolution and creationist theories. I am not really religious at all but I believe in a God. Secondly since both theories are valid I will present them to her in an unbiased way and she can decide for herself what she chooses to believe.

Since neither one can be proved or disproved and I would like to see the Independent Scientific studies not done by a church, religious group or fanatical science person. That has proven or disproven the theories. I believe that is how they will remain pure theories to be pondered on until the end of the universe.

[Chris1]

Quote “especially since Darwin has been disproved”   This is simply not true-The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by scientists because the theory is supported by overwhelming evidence. Scientists continue to argue about the details of evolution, but accept the main ideas of the theory.

Intelligent design is a religious view, a relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory.
Objections made when investigated closely, involve one four problems:

Faulty assumptions
Faulty data
Misapplication of principles, laws, and equations
Failure to consider opposing evidence

[purplefungi]

I think that it is important to teach what a variety of people believe in. That being said, I will be teaching evolution, creationalism, and what other group of people (e.g. Native Americans, ancient civilations, and etc.) believed in.

Even if you believe in God and that the Universe was created in seven days, children should still be aware that not everyone agrees with that idea. The same goes for people who only believe in evolution. Children of those parents should be aware that other people believe that the world was created by a higher being.

[Chris1]

I agree that we should inform our children of alternative beliefs. Scientific knowledge, however, is not the same as any set of beliefs. Science is unusual in that it is cumulative. It is a system built over time, wherein useful information is retained and ideas that simply don’t stand up are discarded, based on the confirmation of knowledge through testing.

Non-scientific thinking starts with a premise and then looks for things to support it, scientific thinking constantly tries to disprove itself. Children need to be aware of Confirmation Bias.

Your Doman related site looks promising-karma to you.

[purplefungi]

Thanks! It has been a lot of work. I can only work on it for five minutes here and there with work, school, and my precious babes. There are many typos and things left out. I've decided to post it anyway even though it is very much work in progress.

The scientific method rocks. It's really the best that we can do without being all-knowing.

George Washington was killed because it was once thought that blood letting could help people get better. During ancient times, people bore holes through other people's heads to perhaps release evil spirits. We, of course, now know that these sorts of treatments do not help and even hasten the death of the individual. This is science in action. One day, we might learn that the things that we are doing now are really not correct. Take string theory for example. One day when we have better methods of measuring the very big and the very small, we might learn that this theory is not correct at all.

I believe that when teaching evolution that it is definitely a great idea to outline the scientific method. Science is not perfect, but it leaves room for reflection, reasoning, and deduction.

[Nikolett]

I do have high education in physics so science is not foreign to me  These 4 are what Evolution (as in explaining of beginning of life) is based on  
Faulty assumptions
Faulty data
Misapplication of principles, laws, and equations
Failure to consider opposing evidence
There is a different meaning of the word Evolution, but maybe I won't get into it now....
Watch Kent Hovind if you'd like some entertaining enlightenment

I think this is a bigger topic than science - true or false. Whether you can or try to disprove either Evolution or Creation/Intelligent design the purpose or faith (if you will) behind them is what matters to me.  Created in the image of God is just a lot more inspiring to individual and productive to community than coming from a monkey
Do post your bits, Mandy  k

[Kappasweet]

I will be teaching my child about evolution.  I do not want to limit his ability to enter and excel in biological/medical fields.

[Chris1]

Is this the same Kent Hovind?  "Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.[9] Other critics of Hovind have charged that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards and a suspicious tuition scheme."

http://www.answers.com/topic/kent-hovind

"Hovind's views are criticized by the scientific community at large and even some fellow Young Earth creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis."

Since November 2006 Hovind is serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions.

[THen]

I like the scientific method, too (like purplefungi). 

My view is that micro-evolution (evolution within a species) has been scientifically proven.  They have been able to do experiments and observe the results.  However, macro-evolution (evolution between species) doesn't have enough scientific evidence.  Like Chris1 said, "Science ... based on the confirmation of knowledge through testing."  Scientist have not been able to do that.  So, macro-evolution is still in the hypothesis stage of the scientific method (that's why it's called a theory).  So, if one believes in it, it takes faith. 

Now, as parents I think we have the privilege of teaching our children what we believe.  When they are old enough to do critical thinking, I think it is important to let them study the different views and theories out there.  I think a good scholar knows both sides, then makes an educated decision. 

[Chris1]

Macroevolution-biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution"

The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.

The overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

[Chris1]

Nikolett,

You have confused evolution which is the study of how groups of living things change over time, with abiogenesis which is the study of how life on earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

Abiogenesis is in it's infancy. Scientists have only recently started researching catalytic RNA, for example. However, evolution, a separate theory, has mountains of evidence behind it and is well defined. Both theories deal with different realms of evidence and are really in different fields. Abiogenesis is more in the realm of chemistry while evolution is fully in the field of biology.

Chris.

[Nikolett]

Nikolett,

You have confused evolution which is the study of how groups of living things change over time, with abiogenesis which is the study of how life on earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

Abiogenesis is in it's infancy. Scientists have only recently started researching catalytic RNA, for example. However, evolution, a separate theory, has mountains of evidence behind it and is well defined. Both theories deal with different realms of evidence and are really in different fields. Abiogenesis is more in the realm of chemistry while evolution is fully in the field of biology.

Chris.

They do lump it all together in school, don't they? I'm glad you mention they are just theories after all...

As to Kent Hovind, I am not his judge, I wasn't aware of his tax evasion issues, but it doesn't negate the fact his ministry has done smth good 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Kent_Hovind_right&src=ansTT

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 34163
• Latest: Anitha guna

Stats

• Total Posts: 47041
• Total Topics: 7143
• Online Today: 95
• Online Ever: 175
• (September 12, 2009, 10:55:55 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 5
• Guests: 54
• Total: 59
• ariel
  saunier
  ZaJa
  VictoriaC
  icesha13