In 2013, Free Schools In England Will Have To Teach Evolution In The Classroom

Why don't the schools teach what the oldest culture wrote in their history, the Sumerians?

Sure teach evolution that is fine, too.
But why is only ok, if they do teach along with evolution just one type of religion views, why just one. That’s rather disrespectful to all the other religions, ya think.

By the way, my first sentence included the Sumerian history. I did not say it was a religion. And what the Sumerians wrote down for history was original as it was taught to them from beings that come from above. It was not stories past from previous cultures, making it a hand me down myth, similar to religions.

Interesting usage of "comprehensive" and "coherent"

"comprehensive and coherent scientific theory."

I suppose to make the point that this need to be required, would suggest past experiences were incomprehensive and incoherent, lol.

I'm all for teaching Creationism in schools! I had alot of fun in ancient literature classes and would love to listen about how the great raven created the world by building the world out of tree twigs. Or the infinite worlds from Hindu. Or the giant turtle that carry the world on its back. Oh definitely don't forget Chronus and the Titans. Or that Aztec goddess who had sex with a obsidian knife and gave birth to all the people.

user64x,
Big big hug to you. SQUISH!

Respect to other cultures and religions. I like it!

Mleb

They are teaching evolution which is a science not so much a religious view. I really think that they need to have evolution taught in schools here in the US. I recently took a Physical Anthropology class and it has changed my view so much. It shows evolution as a science and shows it to be the groundwork that puts many science levels in place. So many people have the misconception that learning evolution is bad because its saying that we evolved form apes and so on. The truth is that no we did not however we have a common ancient ancestor that shared traits and of course from that great apes and such split off to another section and the same with humans. I was in the same boat way before where I thought that was the view on evolution but I learned so much about it and can separate religion veiews from the science views. I also agree with teaching creationism and of course if you teach that why not teach about different religions. Just because they teach these things doesn't mean you have to believe it. People just need to be a little open minded about things. I think it will help people understand views on these things so much more.

Creations.
Some years ago, when I was born, from my perspective the COSMOS began. This comes from a certain my perspective. So for me the COSMOS is a half a centry old.
And science says the COSMOS is about 13.7 billion years old.
I think both things are true and a person just to be fair and clear from what perspective of the conversation they are speaking about.

Religion is not based on the scientific method and is therefore not science. But there is no problem with religion being freely taught in history or literature classes because that's exactly what it is.

That's all. It doesn't matter that they teach it, they just can't teach it as science.

haywall,
I agree with you completely. Hence presenting the information from the correct perspective.
Ta-DA!

Question to Evolution and Creationism --
"What came first" -- the egg or chicken(raptor dinosaur)
Because your not versed in Modern Science you will both get it wrong so I will answer for you.

The answer is "NEITHER"! All life produces life and after this life is produced, its environment will determine whether or not this life form will continue as a reproducing species. Just in case that went zinging right over your heads there is a difference between life and species.

Not to freak you both out but dirt and rock are alive and doing well!

BruceVoigt,
GAIA would agree with you! ;)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology)

www.pantheon.org/articles/g/gaia.html

Whatever your views on origins, "evolution" is not a comprehensive theory. there are dozens of evolutionary theories, and more than one kind of evolution. For example, darwinian evolution presents no real theory about the universe, and several astronomical evolutionary theories say that aliens or comets seeded earth. Evolution is not "comprehensive" or "coherent"/ Here is a direct quote from my college textbook. "The design of the universe is to complex and organized to have been created by random catastrophic events. However, we know the universe EVOLVED(emphasis not added)." ??? those to statements directly contradict each other, not very coherent to me. It evolved, but couldn't have? If you insist on teaching evolution, at least quite contradicting yourself every other sentence. Also, use correct terminology. If it evolved, there was no design. If evolution is true, you should "know" not "believe" (talking to Dawkins here). If there are multiple THEORIES, teach them all. After you build a time machine and go back and observe the beginning, then you can start teaching something as a fact.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

I really hate it when people misquote Einstein (or anyone) to make it look like he supported religion. You are misusing that quote. When he refers to "science with religion" he's talking about a sort of "sense of cosmic awe" that you get when you see the grandness and complexity of our physical world. He is not speaking of supernatural fairytales. By using Einstein quotes to support religion you show great ignorance. I get that Einstein at times enjoyed flowery language that metaphorically drew from various spiritual traditions, but don't confuse that with him actually being religious.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein

The quote I've included is from the same letter by the way as the one you're misusing.

What ever happened to the word "free school" people go there cause maybe they don't want to learn about evolution(which has never been proven anyway). If i go to a free school, i am going there cause it is free from government regulation and control. I think that if it is a "free school" than i should actually be free, and not a puppet for the government to feed lies. That's just my opinion anyway

Zentastic
I disagree. Einstein was an agnostic, if not religious. If you take the time to look at sources, he and many, many other scientists point out the wonder of nature points to god. Don't call people you don't know ignorant, and then make an ignorant comment yourself. If you want to talk about misquotes, lets look at Darwin. Have you even read his book? do you even know the name? Did you know that he says in his book his theory is incomplete, and should be taught with competing theories? I do not show great ignorance, you do, by ignoring his other quotes, and pulling one out of a hat. Einstein was a Jewish agnostic. he did not believe in a personal god, but in a creator that was beyond his human understanding. Here is a quote that ignorant people LIKE YOU will not like. Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." I am not the ignorant one here. BTW you neglected, in your quote, to include the part where he points out he is talking about Judaism, in response to being offered the presidency. He believed that science had to be studied along with religion, because he believed in a god. He did not think that an accurate picture of the universe could be gained by science or religion alone, and frequently said that atheists were fools. He was a deeply, but personally, spiritual man, who did not like established religion. I will use this quote as I like, since I am obviously better informed.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

Mleb

arathorn867
I have to agree with the Darwin issue you mentioned. I however have not read the Origin of Species and would like to some time soon. I do have to comment and also agree that Darwin does mention that he wasn't complete on issues and theories. He was not trying to push these views on anyone and also had a hard time dealing with if he should publish his work and findings. I have said before that I was closed minded about evolution but I did open up to see what it was all about and found it very interesting.

From the picture in the article, monkeys evolved into man caring a spear. Then in the center, we have the Beetles pictured from the album 'Abby Road', then man de-evolving again.

Why are the Beetles picture form Abby Road in this article and why at the end are humans de-evolving?
This is rather bizarre picture, lol.

Robot
One reason that humans may be pictured de-evolving is that this is the only form of evolution that is undisputed. Changes in genetic code have been observed, and some even seem beneficial at the time, but they all result in a loss of information overall, with no new information, just different active genes. For example, some fish were observed in a river as it became highly polluted. a fraction of the population seemed to adapt, but when the water became pure again, the genes that they lost in adapting made them vulnerable to a disease, and they went extinct. The apparent evolution resulted from a gene deactivating and being lost from the immune system, but allowed them to resist the pollution temporarily. The lost gene meant that they had devolved and become more vulnerable. true evolution, or macro evolution, is a massive net gain in information that makes a species more competitive overall, and it has never been observed.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

Creationist...any other word for idiots.

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com
"We Entertain When It Rains"

There is nothing scientific method about abiogenesis. No hypothesis of how it happened has ever held up to a scientific experiment.

No peer-reviewed journal has ever published an article stating the results of a successful abiogenesis experiment.

As to Darwinian evolution, the best experimental setup to date has been done by (can't remember off hand) but it involves many hundreds if not thousands of generations of bacteria grown in lab. To date no novel coding and beneficial genes have came as a result of mutation.

That is to say. Darwininism such as it is, is not good science, it is poor philosophy telling 'just so' stories. It takes more faith than most religions to buy into the dogmas and still have a critical, rational mind.

arathorn867,
While you did answer one of my questions, it felt more like a square peg being put in a round hole and lack sources.

So why are the Beetles picture form Abby Road in this article?

Maybe the author felt they were the peak of human evolution.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

@arathorn - I'm afraid you've made the common mistake of confusing regular theories with scientific theories. A regular theory, like intelligent design, is a guess, based on belief or opinion, but not scientific evidence. A scientific theory has loads of proof to back it up. We know evolution to be true, but the mechanisms of this evolution are still up for debate. The only reason evolution is not a law is that we don't have millions of years to test the theory. Intelligent design of course has not a shred of any scientific evidence to back it up, so it is "pseudo-science", and not to be taught in schools.

And you only have to open your eyes to see proof of beneficial evolutionary adaptations, such as how Europeans adapted fair skin to better cope with a cooler climate. Without evolution, there would be no difference in race. We see this most evident with dogs. 70% of dog breeds are less than 200 years old. We selectively evolved them to our liking, so while the mechanism was imposed, it is still evolution. Some of these adaptions are beneficial, some are not. This is not always simply genes "changing". There have been several experiments that have observed adding of information, and the reason these are not acknowledged by the non-scientific community is simply because non-scientists don't have a clear understanding of what "information" means.

@syfyguy

You're name describes your beliefs well. As you seem to believe in the science fiction of Darwinian evolution.

"There have been several experiments that have observed adding of information,"

False. This has not been shown.

In both the European skin and the dog case you give examples of loss of information.

@Syfyguy
I'm sorry, but dogs is the worst possible proof you could have possibly presented for evolution, in fact it is laughable. Domestic dogs have been carefully selected and bred by INTELLIGENT beings. None have ANY new information, merely different active genes. The "species" you mention are actually called breeds, variations of the same animal, a dog, which is the species (species is a group of genetically similar animals, breed is a homogeneous group within a species, loosely defined). 99% of all dog breeds are inbred and have lost massive amounts of information. Most dog breeds are incapable of surviving without humans because of the breeding of the last 200 years. think pug. many are born so that they can't even breath properly. Papilions, incapable of doing anything but looking nice. This is not evolution, it is called devolution, because they are less fit, and have lost information. Europeans have not evolved, they have the exact same DNA as, say, Africans, but the pigment gene is not active. if someone gave you gene therapy shot before you were born, no one might know you were "white". There has never been an observation of added information. Occasionally, geneticists have succeeding in inserting preexisting dna from another species, but that is intelligent design, not evolution (unless you think they are idiots, in which case it could be called evolution). If you really believe what you wrote, you know absolutely nothing about genetics. There is actually evidence for intelligent design, such as fossilized racoons next to dinosaurs (not possible if evolutionary theory was correct), human footprints overlapped by dinosaur prints(supposedly even less possible), ancient writings and cave paintings depicting humans and dinosaurs together( how did they know what they looked like if they didn't see them?), and too many others to list. Evidence for evolution? Dogs? please, lets be serious. Evolution is fraught with fraud, intentional misinformation, ignoring evidence, faulty testing practices, ridiculous assumptions, and no fossil evidence of the missing link. By the way, I know what a scientific theory is, and intelligent design qualifies. If anything, evolution is not a valid scientific theory, since it has failed to provide incontrovertible evidence, and has so many problems and pieces of evidence contesting it. I'm not claiming intelligent design is perfect either, far from it, as it is commonly thought of, but no one can prove anything without a time machine.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

First, let us get out of the idea that evolution is proven science. It cannot be, since it is neither observable, testable, or reproducable (even if you could create and observe it, you would only prove that evolution could happen, not that it did). Thus, there will never be proof for evolution.

Second, that does not mean that evolution is not valid. It merely means that it is an interpretive theory derived from observation. As such, it is acceptable.

Third, it is when that theory becomes a litmus test for actual observational interpretations that it becomes an abbomination of science. If information is discredited or discarded because it disagrees with the theory (a theory that was created BECAUSE it fit the evidence given), then it become dogma.

Fourth, any theory will hold and seem coherient to science when it comes with the premise that any contradictory evidence is non-scientific.

I cannot say whether the diversity of life came into existance to fill the mold of this world or if life was created for this world's mold. I was not there. If you were there, THEN you could speak from experience.

If there are no cherry skittles in my bowl, is it because they are my favorite and I ate them first, or is it because I hate them and picked them out? Either theory might fit, and they cannot both be correct (though both could be wrong). You cannot, however, simply choose the one you believe in and call that science.

There is no arguement at the present for a more compelling view of the world than evolution that does not require either God or some similar advanced galactic being. The absence of a better, non-theological, answer, however, does absolutely nothing to increase the validity of evolution.

Only evidence can do that, and evidence is only valid if it is taken as equal evidence whether it supports or does not support evolution.

Ask an evolutionist what evidence seems to contradict evolution. If they do not give any, you know they are NOT a scientist (reguardless of title, degree, or occupation), because any honest scientist would know that even in a world where evolution was absolute fact there is no way that all of the evidence would support it. Life is too variable.

If, on the other hand, the person lays out the evidence against it, but holds that the evidence for it is more compelling, then you can respect the man, even if you disagree - since that is a person weighing the evidence, who would likely, with new more compelling evidence, shift position in the search for truth (a scientist at heart).

Of course, this is (A) the Brits, so of little signifigance to the world in any century that doesn't begin with a "1" and (B) evidence that in the UK, that "free" is always an illusion - since there is no "free"dom in "free" (for the student, but not the taxpayer) education.

I can't believe that people argue evolution based on Darwin, as if he's the end-all-be-all of the concept. As if the idea hasn't evolved significantly since then through careful research... If we're going to debate how "confirmed" a "theory" is, evolution is significantly better understood than gravity for example. In any case, there is no other "theory" that can be taught alongside evolution that has any observable reality. Yes, of course we can make up a zillion fairytales that ignore reality, which eventually brings us to the flying spaghetti monster.

@arathorn867, I made no claim that Einstein was atheist. I said that he was opposed to religion, which I think is eminently clear, especially when we're talking about Abrahamic religions. As I said, he obviously enjoyed spiritual metaphors, and I think it's reasonable to say that he saw the entirety of existence as some sort of superbeing, what he referred to as "cosmic religion"... But when you use only the quote that you're pulling out, especially when you're using it in apparent defense of creationism in the Judeochristian sense or at least the sense of an anthropomorphic god, you're deeply twisting his words.

Squabbling over Einstein's views, which really are an irrelevant diversion, this conversation is extremely depressing as it reveals the depth of ignorance even among Popular "Science" readers... which then got me reading all the upsetting stats like only 14% of Americans believing in evolution. According to the polls Wikipedia quotes, even here in Canada 42% of Canadians are dumb enough to believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Someone please tell me those people are referring to Mokele-mbembe or Jurassic Park Movies or something.

@zentastic

Evolution as means for origins is bad philosophy, not good science.

It's a convenient myth, but hasn't stood up to the scientific method. Too many counter examples, and no positive correlations that can't be otherwise explained.

@Bagpipes100

Ok... The way you're qualifying "as a means for origins" I assume that what you're saying is that evolution may well be solid science for, well, evolution, that is the evolution of all the life on the planet from earlier forms of life (as all observable evidence and mountains of experimental data confirms quite conclusively)... But that it is not a good explanation for the initial "spark" of life, the transformation from inanimate to animate life?

If I'm understanding your qualification correctly, well, evolution isn't really concerned with the creation of life. Darwin mused about it a little but it's not what the so-called "theory of evolution" focuses on -- it's about how life changes over time, and how diversity and chance happens over time... Why we have a zillion different forms of life rather than just whatever that first spark created. Evolution as being discussed here doesn't really focus on that early organic chemistry. That said, there's a lot of good science done in that area as well -- you could start reading up on abiogenesis for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

And really, even if you're not convinced that evolution is 99.99% confirmed, given that there is ZERO evidence for creationism beyond "this ancient fairytale says so".

PS. Nice breakdown of some of the anti-science critiques I hear repeated often -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwcnV-d-M4

Oh and I should add @Bagpipes100 that if you're talking about "origins", that Darwin was of the opinion that a deity created a "perfectly designed universe" where the conditions were right for evolution and a scientific creation of life... God the engineer I suppose. A God that set about the Big Bang and a Universe with specific universal constants and so on so that intelligent life could form naturally -- essentially what is now referred to as "theistic evolution".

Ultimately though I think that if we start talking about a god that only shows pre-big bang, or in areas where we have limited scientific understanding, it's a little silly. And really, I think that's just reflective of the limited territory that religion has left to tell its stories where they can't be disproved conclusively... Short of omphalos hypothesis and other concepts that claim God/Satan created "false evidence" for evolution, the age of the earth, whatever, in order to test our faith or create a consistent world -- that is, a cosmology where no observable evidence has any value -- the reality is that the more time that passes, the less space in the real world there is for fairy tales. They become regulated to where they are more appropriately enjoyed by all -- as art.

@zentastic

Even beyond the origins issues, you don't have any evidence that novel functional/coding genes ever get created by mutations in any reasonable amount such that even if by some magic life started from non-life that it could go from one simple form of life to another just barely more complex form of life in all the time since you would posit the big-bang happened.

Don't bother explaining to me what supposed faults you find with creationism or any other system other than your own. You can't defend your own position but you so dogmatically hold onto it.

Evolution (as defined as one species actually turning into another species) fails the scientific method.

It's not been observed (we haven't even been recording observations using the scientific method long enough for the proposed models of evolution to say it's even possible to have observed it).

And it's mathematically laughable to say that it even could happen in the limited time since the big bang based on current models.

Richard Lenski,

That's who I was thinking of earlier. From MSU. Over 50000 generations of bacteria and no evidence for novel coding genes.

The best experiment going with the scientific method....and nada as a result.

That's evolution for you.

Devine planned evolution is so cool!

@arathorn867 great post!!

Evolution is just a throw away theory. There is absolutely no proof of it. I don’t believe in “creationism”…I believe in intelligent design. :D

@Bagpipes100

I am concerned about your understanding of how evolution works. I would like to address some of your comments.

First off, you keep stating that no novel coding or beneficial genes have come as a result of mutation. This statement is utterly false. There are thousands of beneficial mutations that have been empirically examined and discovered. They are called gain of function mutations.You seem to have discussed Richard Lesnki's research as evidence to the contrary, but this leads me to believe that, A) You haven't actually read any of his empirical research or reviews, or B) You don't seem to understand his work or his findings. Richard Lenski's work actually illustrates the usefulness and limitations of using bacterial strains for real-time evolution research, and demonstrates the importance of beneficial mutations for selective adaptation. It is well known that the ratio of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations is very high, but the incidence of beneficial mutations is both relative to the environment and necessary for adaptive selection.

Secondly, although abiogenesis is an interesting theory that can compliment the theory of biological evolution, it is not part of traditional evolutionary theory and therefore is irrelevant. It seems pretty intuitive that this article is in reference to teaching the traditional theory of evolution in classrooms (just look at the picture), and not necessarily abiogenesis or the origin of the Universe (in reference to arathorn867).

Lastly, you seem to keep stating that evolution fails the scientific method, which is also false. Evolution is a well established and supported scientific theory that is based on observation. Of course we have not seen a species evolve into a new species because this process can take hundreds of thousands of years. It is not measurable because of the limitations of human lifespan and current technology. However, this does not mean the theory of evolution cannot be tested and has not been tested. You seem to undermine the plethora of evidence that exists in the fossil records, homology, embryonic development, DNA sequencing, the age of the earth, evidence for geographical speciation, and natural selection. The theory for how evolution works has been tested and supported extensively. Since we cannot live for thousands of years we have to use other methods to observe the underlying principles that allow for evolution, such as the examples I discussed above. It is also important to understand two key aspects about Darwinian Evolution. 1) VARIATION. Variation is the most important part of Darwin's theory because without variation there cannot be natural selection. This is why genetic mutation is extremely important and increases variation within populations (amongst other things). 2) The over simplification of survival of the fittest. People often misinterpret Darwin's message here because they have a definitive view of what the "fittest" individual means. Fittest, refers to reproductive success, but also to how well an individual survives in its environment. The simplification here is that people fail to see what Darwin was getting at, and what he actually meant. An individual can have a deleterious mutation that effects one aspect of its fitness, but its environment may not select for it. In other words, its not always the seemingly best fit that contribute to evolution. For example, a species can undergo a genetic mutation that makes it less likely to be selected by mates of the same species (is less fit), but if there is a drastic environment change (extreme climate change, weather, loss of food source, introduction of a new predator, etc.) the less fit individuals may become the more fit individuals. This can occur on a wide scale, from deleterious mutations that are not immediately recognizable in phenotype (but may effect behavior), to deleterious mutations that cause drastic changes in phenotype. So often what turns out to be considered "beneficial" is relative to time and the context of the environment.

I would be happy to discuss this further with you, but I encourage you to read about the multitude of evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

Also,

I don't want you to think I am singling you out here. I am concerned about many of the comments on this thread. Evolution is not a throw away theory. I encourage anyone that feels otherwise to conduct some research of their own (read empirical articles or reviews) in order to gain a better understanding of the theory and how it continues to "evolve" itself.