How many people are against including inconsistencies of evolutionary theory in public school?

Question

Evolution is included in most public school curriculum because it is backed by evidence when viewed from a secular perspective (our school/government is secular). There are, however, inconsistencies within the theory that cannot be denied form a logical standpoint. For instance, the huge lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. The ratio for how many missing links have been found to how many fossils have been uncovered (well into the millions) is remarkably low. Not necessarily proof that evolution is wrong but definitely an issue that is hard to ignore. Not only that, but evolution, as of today, is not observable. Adaptation is, but not evolution. Millions of years would have to pass before we could say, without a doubt, that one kind of animal can turn into another (horse to cow, reptile to bird, etc.). It's an historical science and should therefore be taught from the most objective view possible, which means exploring its faults as well as its merits. Thoughts? Comments? Insults?

TL;DR - Should teaching of evolution in public schools include the view that it could be wrong?

Answer 1

evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.



Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.



Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Answer 2

You obviously don't understand evolution. Nothing really turns into something else, it's just that we call them a different name after dramatic change. Evolution is like this analogy. The change between a fetus and a 90 year old person. If you took a picture of the change everyday over 90 years and lined them up in a progressive row, you wouldn't ever be able to pick 2 side by side images and say, "this is where the fetus changed into an old man". Although change is constantly happening, it can only be seen if you jump many places back or forwards. You can't just say," but a fetus is still the same organism as the old man", because all life forms are the same organism as the original first one cell animal. We just arbitrarily give them different names when we see dramatic changes. Nothing really changes into something else, it just changes within it's self.



The vast majority of animals that ever lived never left a fossil behind and we haven't even come close to finding all the fossils. Even if we had all the fossils lined up in a row, it would still be impossible to say, "this is where something changed into something else, because the change is so small that side by side changes would look nearly identical. With enough small changes an animal will look much different. We do see small changes taking place today, but a few hundred years isn't even a blink of an eye compared to the billions of years that evolution has been taking place. To expect to see much change in such a small time frame would be akin to asking a person what events took place in one second of their life in the past year.



There is no reason to assume it is wrong. Every facet of science corroborates that evolution is a fact. Yes, it is remotely possible that all of science is wrong, but until we have sufficient reason to assume it is, we shouldn't. Once you understand evolution it's pretty hard to deny it's validity.



Edit: All fossils are transitional forms.



Edit: "I would feel a lot more useless if I believed we were here on accident." You should never let your feeling get in the way of what is true or not. Otherwise you may let biases cloud your judgement.

Answer 3

Your premise is incorrect. All fossils are transitional fossils and yes, we can observe, and have observed, evolution in action.



Your apparent inability to understand that evolution has never involved morphing from horse to cow, and your splitting of hairs over the definition of "adaptation" and "evolution" reveals you to be a creationist, despite your measured tone. Evolution is the cumulative effect of many adaptations over time, generally in an isolated population experiencing environmental changes or pressures.



Nice try, but no cigar.





Added: This is the list Axebeast was talking about...dozens of overtly transitional fossils, as a simple Google search would have shown you.



This information is widely and readily available, although creationists routinely deny it exists...that's why the phrase "lying for Jesus is still lying" is used when a creationist promotes the falsehood that there are no transitional fossils - because it's a lie.



Of course, you won't see any fossils of a dinosaur hatching an egg with a fully-formed bird in it, which seems to be the only "transition" that would satisfy rabid creationists, who simply demonstrate a complete and ignorant misunderstanding of evolution with such a stupid standard.



To quote from the article - "See the article on transitional fossils for an explanation of the difference with intermediate forms. Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils



Enjoy.

Answer 4

There isn't a huge lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.



Even if there were it is more than covered by the DNA evidence.



Evolution today is and has been observed, stop lying for christ, it's a sin.



You may have a view that the theory of evolution which explains the facts of evolution is wrong but neither you or anyone else has ever been able to provide any evidence that it is wrong.

Answer 5

Sure, but only in the context that we say the theories of gravitation could be wrong.



every scientific theory could be wrong, the point is that 1) They are testable 2) the tests almost always support the theory and 3) The theory is useful/tells us something new.



F=ma is a scientific principle, but it's wrong in the absolute sense because it's not always true (at high energy levels). But it doesn't matter. It's practical, it's testable and it's usually good enough to use for daily life.



There are no serious scientific oppositions to the Theory of Evolution (natural selection and other forms of genetic change).

Answer 6

Moving beyond that it has been taught as 'fact' in the school system for decades it is good to see that there are still people who critically look at what they are presented. Teaching micro evolution or adaptation in schools as science is normal I think.



To teach a theory is also acceptable



What is not acceptable is to teach a theory as fact. Regardless of what the theory is. The theory of evolutionary origins for instance cannot be proven true or false by experimentation. That means that scientific observation cannot help to prove the theory true or false. The theory turns out to make claims about mankind’s origins without being able to prove that it’s true. This makes the theory a philosophical theory. Any philosophical theory should not be taught as fact in a science class.



I'm sure there are a great deal of you who would argue that it’s not a theory or that it doesn't make claims. I would ask you simply to open up nearly any biology book dated within the last 5-10 years and look to see where it talks of mans origins. To speak of that subject takes it from the realm of science to the realm of philosophy.



Imagine how outraged many of you would be if Intelligent design was taught as truth in a science class. You wouldn't stand for it. Why... because its a theory of philosophy. Imagine if it was creationism, which is also backed by science you would be outraged then too. All three of these are philosophical in nature. They are not 'scientific' in nature. No one knows the starting conditions; no one can pinpoint HOW it happened. It is conjecture either way.



ILLEGAL?



To teach a philosophical theory as truth sponsored by the Government would be the same as having a government mandated belief system imposed. Many here wouldn't stand for a Christian belief system to be 'imposed' on them. However it somehow becomes acceptable to impose evolutionary origins on all children and those who are taught as truth of science. It is not hard to see where the hypocrisy lies.

Answer 7

I majored in biology. Part of what we learned was how fossils form and where and why it would be unreasonable to expect most species from all periods to be fossilized. Fossil evidence we do have is overall highly supportive of evolutionary theory and taken together with evidence from genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology give a clear case supporting the theory. The questions left for the scientific community are the exact mechanisms and pathways involved. Some of the answers here demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of science in general. A theory in science is not the same as the way people use the word in daily language to mean just an idea they have. In science its an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. A theory and law cover slightly different domains, its not a hierarchy where one is promoted to the other. Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.



"Creationists sometimes cite what they claim to be an incomplete fossil record as evidence that living things were created in their modern forms. But this argument ignores the rich and extremely detailed record of evolutionary history that paleontologists and other biologists have constructed over the past two centuries and are continuing to construct. Paleontological research has filled in many of the parts of the fossil record that were incomplete in Charles Darwin’s time. The claim that the fossil record is "full of gaps" that undermine evolution is simply false. Indeed, paleontologists now know enough about the ages of sediments to predict where they will be able to find particularly significant transitional fossils, as happened with Tiktaalik and the ancestors of modern humans. Researchers also are using new techniques, such as computed axial tomography (CT), to learn even more about the internal structures and composition of delicate bones of fossils. Exciting new discoveries of fossils continue to be reported in both the scientific literature and popular media.



Another compelling feature of the fossil record is its consistency. Nowhere on Earth are fossils from dinosaurs, which went extinct 65 million years ago, found together with fossils from humans, who evolved in just the last few million years. Nowhere are the fossils of mammals found in sediments that are more than about 220 million years old. Whenever creationists point to sediments where these relationships appear to be altered or even reversed, scientists have clearly demonstrated that this reversal has resulted from the folding of geological strata over or under others. Sediments containing the fossils of only unicellular organisms appear earlier in the fossil record than do sediments containing the remains of both unicellular and multicellular organisms. The sequence of fossils across Earth’s sediments points unambiguously toward the occurrence of evolution."

Answer 8

Any scientific theory could be "wrong" this is why they are theories and not absolute truths. Science is constantly fine tuning and correcting it's theories as new information comes to light. However you'd be hard pressed to say the theory of gravity isn't "true". Go try it with a long walk of a short pier sometime.



Do you want to apply this daft logic with every other scientific theory?

Answer 9

If there are flaws in the theory, then these flaws should certainly be taught. However, they should not be augmented to the point that they overwhelm or attempt to coerce pupils into thinking that evolution is a laughable idea. This would infringe upon the personal opinions of the students.

Answer 10

Sadly, evolution has taken on the characteristics of some religions.

The faithful must defend the faith to the death.

Skeptics are criticized, humiliated, fired or denied grants and promotions.

Evolution has never been observed in nature, reproduced in the lab nor proved factual, yet it is taught as a fact.

Of course they should teach the holes in the theory but they never will.

It's against their faith to do so.

Answer 11

Teaching evolution should not exclude the gaps in the theory, but it should not include teaching that it could be wrong, as long as it is emphasized that the research is continuous. Evolution is absolutely observable today in the form of virus mutation, so that part of your argument is fallacious.

Answer 12

Assuming these are actually real inconsistencies and not anti-evolutionist propaganda, I don't know.



It might be confusing, I think it would be better just to teach children the theory instead of over complicating things.

Answer 13

>the huge lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.



Lying for jesus is still lying.



>The ratio for how many missing links have been found to how many fossils have been uncovered (well into the millions) is remarkably low.



All fossils are transitional. You're talking about the rate of fossilization.



>kind



Ah. Kind, no species. You're an anti-science creationist

Answer 14

Secular Liberals have shown a consistent pattern of being willing to lie to make their arguments, to suppress evidence that hurts their arguments, and to smear anyone who disagrees with them. Anyone with more than 2 functioning brain cells knows that Darwinian evolution is FULL of holes! In fact, ONE of their methods of obfuscation is to always talk "evolution," never bothering to clarify:



MACRO-evolution or

MICRO-evolution?



So, yes, of course, I completely agree! And I would add some other facts that need to be mentioned as well:



1. Darwin arbitrarily removed God from the equation. That's a violation of the scientific method! In other words, Darwin didn't set out to find out origin of species. Darwin denied that God was the origin of species AND set up to come up with a "plausible" theory that at once met the other criteria of plausibility while at the same time ruled God out as the creator of species. LOL!



There are so many secular scientists today who have their own agendas that it's not as obvious as I would hope that this is a blatant violation of how science is supposed to work. Again, the only bias for science is supposed to be ... TRUTH! Darwin didn't care about the truth! He didn't believe in God! He wanted a theory that denied God!



Some evolutionary scientists who later realized they were too hasty in jumping on Darwin's theory admitted that they did so because ... it denied God's existence. One went so far as to admit that was appealing. When asked why, he said: "If there was no God that meant we could have all the sex we wanted to have."



2. Darwin's theory begins AFTER life has already begun. I mean, under this theory ... life ... just ... happened. Poof! The trouble is, that's not scientific! Science has tried again and again to prove that life can just spontaneously begin. It has never been proved.



These two points alone are DAMNING to those who try to use evolution to deny God!!! God has never been scientifically proved to NOT be the origin of species, never scientifically removed as a potential origin of species, and has never been proven to not be the creator of life.



3. Now ... Darwin and his cohorts admit that they have no earthly idea how life began, let alone, when, why, or where. Yet, under this silly theory, it just pretends to know that life began as a so-called primordial slime. AND the theory limits the beginning of life TO this so-called primordial slime from whence all other life is said to have evolved.



I ask simple questions:



A) Where is there ANY scientific evidence that says that the first life was this slime?

B) Where is there ANY scientific evidence that says that this slime was the ONLY life that ever came to be my a mysterious non-evolutionary means?

C) Where is there ANY scientific evidence that absolutely and unequivicably rules out that other life forms could have come to be JUST as this slime did, however that happened to be?

D) Where is there ANY scientific evidence that absolutely and unequivicably rules out that ALL species didn't come to be by this same method, whatever that happened to be?



4. One last series of points about reproduction. IF all species evolved then ... forgetting for a second that mysterious origin of life, under this theory ALL life is coming to pass by a protracted evolutionary process. Then ... what explains ... males and females? What explains the radically different methods of procreation across all life forms (flora and fauna)? What explains that a given species could BOTH evolve AND evolved male and female with radically different yet beautifully compatible reproductive systems? And maybe most importantly of all ... WHAT explains how these species figured out that they could "join" and reproduce?



I mean, the secularists want to mock Christianity and the so-called "Intelligent Design" theory, but Christianity answers ALL of these questions! And Christianity has no bias, other than a belief in and love of God. We're not out to suppress any truths!



Keep it up! Cockroaches cannot handle it when the light of truth is turned on them!!!

Answer 15

I can't be too concerned about what a secular institution teaches their children. There are other options.

Answer 16

If there are inconsistencies, LOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC inconsistencies, then yes.

Answer 17

There are no inconsistencies in the fact of evolution. All fossils ever found are transitional fossils.



If there were inconsistencies, I would welcome the teaching of them. Fortunately, there are none. Perhaps it would be of use to you if you were to get an education in evolution.

Answer 18

You are wrong or lying or maybe you are just parroting what your shaman has told you. Evolution is a fact, deal with it.

Answer 19

If you have peer reviewed proof, yes. Buy-bull nonsense, NO!

Answer 20

Maybe you need to consider getting back in school too. Just a friendly idea.

Answer 21

i am against it. Evolution is fake! the guy that made it up admitted that it wasn't real before he died. the world was really created by our one true God. No one can enter heaven without Jesus Christ in their heart!

Answer 22

I believe it should. It is a theory; that means scientists only think they know these things. Otherwise, it would be the evolutionary fact. Right?

Answer 23

not me

Answer 24

If they teach Evolution in public schools they should also teach Creationism since they are both theories.

Answer 25

I completely agree with you.