Common mistake being quoted here. Wilberforce, in his debate with Huxley, uses multiple common fallacies in the debate such as ad hominem and Reductio ad absurdum. The example of Reductio ad absurdum is found in his famous quote "Was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey?"

Despite the fact that this is a ridiculous notion, as monkeys would no longer exist had we been their descendants, the actual theory showed we had a COMMON ANCESTOR, thus we are cousins not children of the apes.
-----

I don't know why we didn't all born in heaven already. Probably because it is impossible to be where there isn't.

GenkiSudo: There is a difference between people knocking on your door to preach and kids being fucking (see? Now I'm tough as well seeing as that I can swear on the net) forced to learn a theory on which scientists disagree (just a little example http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm) and that still has many gaps.



Murmayder: 'The theory of evolution isn't of a theory trying to prove that we did evolve. We did, it's a fact.'

This depends on what exactly you mean with evolution.

'...is just another example of the stress that those who hold religious beliefs are feeling in terms of the credibility of their religion and of their sanity in the opened eyes of society.'

You are now putting too many diverse groups into the same pool. Some religions do not feel evolution is a contradiction to their beliefs. Some view it as a 'how'.

'tl;dr totally predictable and cliche, just throw a few of those curly debate winning questions and they'll shut the fuck up.
Examples: Why does God give AIDS to children?
Why is it that God created people who were non-believers and therefore were made for hell?
Why do we wear clothes out of shame when it is said in the bible that we are made of God? Are Christians ashamed of the God they pray to?'

As for your 'debate winning questions' here are just a few examples of MANY possible answers that could be given. It all depends on the religion's views, interpretations and the teachings they follow. (this would be from Christian dominions as I get the feeling you are addressing them. I am also a lot better versed in Christianity than other religions)

1. For the same reason God gives people chicken pox... oh wait, no.. God has left us to our own devices. People are infected with AIDS as a result of contamination by other people. It is debated where it originally came from. Some say hunters got it from chimps, others have said it's a result of human negligence and then there are even more theories (http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm) (http://www.originofaids.com/)
2. You are given the choice by God to follow Him or not (this would stem from those who believe people have free will, those who do not will give a much more extensive answer)
3. When a person feels shame for something they did (in this case eating from the tree of knowledge) he/she does not want to feel open or feel vulnerable. He/she wants to cover up. This can be seen in body language as well.

Basically these questions aren't as great as you think and in all honesty if you are interested in answers to these questions there are many, many places on the net where you can go and you will find many different answers. There you can rant on and debate these answers on those sites to your heart's content. I don't know exactly why you feel the need to attack people who are religious as a whole, but I would advise you to do some thorough research into all the different religions and their dominions if you want to do so as different dominions within the same religion can have opposing views based on translations, interpretations etc.

Biology is completely based on evolution, give or take a few topics. If you don't want kids to learning a generally accepted theory which is denied by a few hypocrites, then don't let them go to school.

Silligoose:

Whatever disagreements there are concern specific details of the theory (eg where homo erectus originated, etc), not the fact of evolution through natural selection itself. The evidence for the phenomena is insurmountable at this point. Speciation (including human speciation) is accepted pretty much unanimously among experts, and I can bet 50k you won't find one (1) notable biologist or geneticist who argues against it.

At the end of the day, it is a SCIENCE class, and as it happens scientists fully endorse the concept of evolution.

What more needs be said? In a private christian school which is NOT funded by everyone's tax money (since, you know, not all tax payers are literalistic christians), let them insert jesus wherever they wish.

I see things like this, and I laugh. The world is constantly trying to move in to the glorious sunshine of enlightenment, and yet those religious folk, with their promises of heaven after death and false gods, try to drag us back in to the dark ages. They make their demands, and when we say no they say we are against religion. Even though we have to deny it and of course logic prevails in our minds, the truth is the world would be better off without religion. It is a soft cocoon that we have outgrown, and like a child throwing away their safety blanket which for so long has offered comfort, we too must discard it. Or we could continue down this road, where we beg for death so we can be released to the 'paradise' of heaven, and the warmth of the cremation fire or 6 feet of dirt above. And when these religious folk have truly created for themselves from this earth a hell worth fearing, the world will look up and shout 'save us' and I will look down and whisper 'no'.

Hyde:'Biology is completely based on evolution, give or take a few topics. If you don't want kids to learning a generally accepted theory which is denied by a few hypocrites, then don't let them go to school.'

While I know that adaptation or can be observed in our world (to a degree) and makes up a part of biology, I still think there are too many gaps and too many assumptions when it comes to darwinism or other evolution-over-millions-of years theories. As I said earlier, if evolution were to be taught in schools it should be taught as a theory and both the arguments for and against it should be taught in an unbiased manner. This would become too extensive for a grade school level class if it is to be incorporated with the rest of the curriculum (and I doubt how unbiased it would be).

'biЗolЗoЗgy (b-l-j)
n.
1. The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.
2. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms: the biology of viruses.
3. The plant and animal life of a specific area or region.'

Biology is made up of different fields (botany, zoology, microbiology). I realize there are many different sub-divisions within biology as well. Do you not think it more practical for kids to study what they can actually see in the here and now and get an understanding for life in our present, as opposed to being forced to learn about theories which are still have problems? I do not think religion should be forced on kids in school and I do not think this evolution theory (darwinism or the like) should be either. After school or in their free time they can pursue the theory of evolution. If they were taught the basics and have not been too exposed to pro- or anti-evolution prior to that, they can look at it themselves with a more open mind as well as 'fresh eyes' which could be beneficial to biology as a whole.

What do you think determined the structure of beings? Also, viruses are actually one of the most visually easy to grab examples of micro evolution.
And specific areas determined to what the being had to adapt to, so actually, Hyde is right, Biology = Abiogenesis + Evolution + some other things.

And I personally think it's weird, you can't just not teach a generally accepted and proven theory because of some butthurt christians. If you don't even want to hear anything about it you shouldn't go to school.

Odlov: Glad to see you have joined us I do grow tired of people changing this subject into a 'it's either God or evolution' battle. Why? Because then people have to heavily fight for evolution since they now believe if they are wrong about that then suddenly they are wrong about there being a God. As stated earlier there are religions that do not refute evolution and view it as an explanation of how we (as humans) got here. Wouldn't it be better to rather look at evolution with the following mindset: 'If the theory is wrong, so what? It's wrong. We need do build a new theory based on facts. It doesn't automatically mean other theories are suddenly correct.'

I watched your video on evolution vs creationism. Nothing new there. Yes creationists bring up problems with the evolution theories. Yes some of the problems have been brought up and repeated for a long time. Again I say so what? Who cares from when or from whom the problems cited come form? Address the problems, not the people who bring them forth. Focus on solving the problems, not discrediting the people who oppose your views. A crude example: Let's say you have done experiments that showed water at sea level will freeze at 0 degrees Celsius and boils at 100 degrees C and the higher above sea level you go the lower the boiling point gets. You then build a theory that states the boiling point of water is dependent on altitude - as altitude is gained the boiling point gets lower. Now let's say I believe aliens put us here and live among us and I dedicate my life to trying to prove I am right. I now say: 'Hang on, I was in Hawaii at the beach and there the water boiled at 95 degrees. I believe (for whatever reason) this is because of the aliens.' Along with this statement I give some evidence. Does discrediting me bring you closer to the truth? No. Does discrediting me mean that what I found isn't true? No. Does this mean that the findings should be disregarded because I believe in something that is nonsense to you? No. Now let's say that you actually do look at the evidence and see that your theory needs a total overhaul and you find that altitude wasn't the reason for the differences in boiling temperature. Does this automatically mean that it was because of aliens? No. Did addressing the PROBLEM and building a new theory help you (and mankind) understand why water boils at different temperatures (pressure differentials)? Yes. If evolution over millions of years is proven to be true not all religions will simply break down. If it's proven wrong it doesn't mean that suddenly the existence of God has been proven.

Now I'll tell you why I see kids being forced to learn darwinism as a problem - it is a theory with quite a few gaps. Now if the kids are brought up to learn this theory as fact many of them will follow this line of thinking. If they pursue a career in biology after being force fed a theory and find some facts or evidence which contrasts the model, they might write it off as an anomaly, try to make those facts or evidence fit with the model or disregard it for whatever reason (pride, insecurity, keeping their job etc) instead of saying 'Hey, this actually causes a problem. Let's try to resolve it by looking for an alternative. Let's not try to make it fit with a standing model(and here I refer to both creationist theories as well as darwinist theories). Let's think outside the box. Let's look at the facts and try to make sense of that.'.

I quote Einstein: 'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong'.

Again I refer to this link (http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm). What happened to this research? I myself have not found much after this, yet the experiment suggests that dinosaurs might have evolved from birds (which seems to contrast what the MAJORITY believes) or that birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor. If people are too heavily set on proving a theory they will find a way to make it fit or disregard findings. This is not the best way to move forward.

As for the kids I say again: Teach them about the organisms we have today. Teach them about what we see today. Have them understand how and why the organisms we have today function. After they understand these things, they can use that knowledge to look into the past and make sense of what has been found. If one really wants to teach evolution one has to go into many subjects regarding it (genetics, paleontology etc) to give a fair view and understanding of it. This is too vast for the curriculum.


Gormon: It is hard to say whether this world would be a better place without religion. Regardless of whether their beliefs are logical or true, I do believe that religion keeps a lot of people in check and many good deeds are a result of religion. Sadly many atrocities have been committed in the name of a God or for the sake of religion and for that there is no excuse, however one can not say that had there not been religion these atrocities would not have occured. Humans are simply that – human. With that comes our human pride, our human ambitions and our human sense of what is fair and just. I think that even without religion wars would still exist, cruelty would still exist and people would still attack one another simply using another reason. As for science and how it’s been held back – in the past that may certainly be true. In this day and age it might actually help to a degree by causing waves and stating the problems with whatever theories are brought up, so that those problems can be looked at. Calm seas make for poor sailors. Unfortunately politics and pride seem to have too great a role in this field and people are too focused on proving that what they put their faith in is right (and this goes for pro- and anti-evolutionists, atheists and religious people)

MeammeO: I already stated earlier that I think it better for students to study what can be observed in the here and now, so that would include the viruses you mentioned. I didn't say that evolution or adaptation can't be observed in the here and now. I am referring to the darwinist theories (millions of years, gradual evolution). Should it be taught the reasons for the theory AS WELL AS the problems with the theory should be taught. It shouldn't be one sided. This would be too vast for the curriculum.

'And I personally think it's weird, you can't just not teach a generally accepted and proven theory because of some butthurt christians. If you don't even want to hear anything about it you shouldn't go to school.'

Let's take another field - a pilot doesn't learn about early engines or early aircraft to understand why aircraft fly today. They learn about the aircraft we find today. The systems involved today. Why the systems that are used, work today. That's the focus. You do not have to know where it came from to understand why it flies. You can however use the knowledge you acquire to go back and look at how aircraft came to be what they are today by looking at aircraft designs of the past should you CHOOSE to do that. I am not against darwinism being taught in schools because of religion. At this point in my life I do not really care if it is proven right or not. I am against it because it can imprint upon the young minds that that is how it happened, even though quite a bit of conjecture is used. Please read the link I gave above and tell me what you think about it. Darwinism has too many gaps where conjecture is used for it to be taught as how things were. Teaching kids this theory instead of teaching them more about what can actually be observed in the here and now is wasteful. If you think spending time teaching kids this theory with it's gaps and conjecture, rather than broadening their knowledge on living specimens and why and how they function in the present we will have to agree to disagree. A better understanding of the present will aid in better understanding of the past. Give them that understanding of the present so that, in the future when they aren't as prone to being brainwashed, they can help man better understand the past.

I am going to have to disagree with you, silligoose... If our schools restrained themselves to teaching only what can be absolutely proven, then the system would be unable to teach just about anything worthwhile. For example: History is mostly based off of the writings of people who lived during the times (primary sources), which are generally accepted as fact, sometimes with evidence to support the story (like corroboration from other writers of the time). Should history classes not be allowed to teach what cannot be absolutely proven, just because it is only a theory backed by evidence?
For chemistry, should the schools not be allowed to show any students the periodic table because there might be new elements dicovered that could adjust what the table might say or look like?
How about physics? You can observe "gravitational theory" by dropping a pencil. Yet there are those who disagree with it and point out its holes. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm, here's a scientist arguing as vehemently against gravitational theory as some argue against evolution. So, as gravitational theory is the basis of physics, should schools refrain from teaching physics?

The way I see it, science is founded upon the principle of establishing theories and then proving or disproving them. In Galileo's time they taught Ptolemy's view of the universe in schools as the truth. If they had not taught Galileo these views, he would not have been able to disprove them. I would hope physicists, biologists, and chemists would be smart enough to question what they had been taught, as that is the very nature of the field they entered into.

i think they should let it be taught i mean evolution happened no matter what your beliefs
i know you said not to say but i believe god made bacteria and made it evolve