Reply
Boots+3 3 kids; Alberta 328 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting I'm His Amy He's My Rory:" My high school taught evolution, but not like Darwinism evolution. It was more how species have evolved ... [snip!] ... of the fittest to have certain traits or like how people at higher elevations now have larger lungs for getting enough oxygen."


That's a fantastic way of teaching evolution! I wish I was taught that way...It's the true part of evolution.



Darwinism is outdated and overrated, in my mind. Whoever taught you evolution had the right idea!

lolajessup 3 kids; 1 angel baby; Beaverton, Michigan 44070 posts
23rd Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Jenna+1:</b>" Eh, I believe creationism but my kids learn evolution, doesn't bother me. I personally think parents ... [snip!] ... be, shows what facts they have on each different part and what the controversies are. They can't prove any of them 100% anyway."</blockquote>



Exactly. Let your Children make their own educated feelings. They can leave both and make their own decisions.
I want my dd to have her own beliefs based off her own research. Im not going to force her to believe one or the other. Just expose her tithe pros an cons of both and let her decide what her beliefs are.

CrapBag. 3 kids; Minnesota 7927 posts
23rd Nov '12

I believe in evolution, so obviously I'd be on board with that being taught in schools. I am also find with my kids learning about creationism as I think it is important for them to choose what they believe. However, I wouldn't expect it in public schools.



I also don't think kids should be able to be removed from either. At that point, when does it end? Do they get excused from science class altogether? Or if I don't agree with them learning long division because you will never need it, can I excuse my children from math class during those units?



IMO, if you don't like what your school is teaching your kids, you are free to home school or find a private school that fits your standards.

MysticWitchKat 2052 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting CrapBag.:" I believe in evolution, so obviously I'd be on board with that being taught in schools. I am also find ... [snip!] ... like what your school is teaching your kids, you are free to home school or find a private school that fits your standards."

I think it can fall under the same umbrella as parents taking kids out of sex ed for religious reasons. I don't think that religious freedom with kids should be absolute, But I'm not in favor of saying in this case they should be forced to learn it either.

Boots+3 3 kids; Alberta 328 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting MysticWitchKat:" You might want to talk to the scientific community then because they consider it one :-P"


Only the atheist based scientific community. Any logical thinking, non biased science would have to admit that there is very little scientific based fact found within Darwin based evolution.



Let's explain something...Creationists do not reject all forms of evolution...What we object to is macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is not based off of micro based evolution, which in essence is how some species have adapted to survive in their environments as the original environments have changed. Micro evolution is a commonly accepted, obviously occuring form of evolution.



The evolution that I, as a creationist object to, is macro-evolution, which has to do with the evolving of species into other species. And for that to happen, it requires the creation of new genetic material, which has never, ever, ever been observed in our world.



I could go on forever, but in essence, not all evolution is bunk. There is some truth in it. The problem with evolution is the macro-evolution theories.

MysticWitchKat 2052 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting Boots+3:" Only the atheist based scientific community. Any logical thinking, non biased science would have to ... [snip!] ... in essence, not all evolution is bunk. There is some truth in it. The problem with evolution is the macro-evolution theories. "

That's more ID though.

Boots+3 3 kids; Alberta 328 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting MysticWitchKat:" I think it can fall under the same umbrella as parents taking kids out of sex ed for religious reasons. ... [snip!] ... freedom with kids should be absolute, But I'm not in favor of saying in this case they should be forced to learn it either."

No, that's a whole different battle. Creation versus evolution is a battle based off of scientific theory, really, while sex ed is based off of moral reasons.

Boots+3 3 kids; Alberta 328 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting MysticWitchKat:" That's more ID though."

Pardon? Sorry, I'm not text savvy at all...

MysticWitchKat 2052 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting Boots+3:" Pardon? Sorry, I'm not text savvy at all..."


Intelligent Design.

Boots+3 3 kids; Alberta 328 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting MysticWitchKat:" Intelligent Design. "


Ok, intelligent design, let's go with this...



How do you make anything out of a bucket of legos? Like, say, a house. You have to put it together. You can have all the pieces, but unless you consciously go and put a house together with the purpose of making a house, you will still have nothing but a bunch of pieces of lego. Now, you can try to create the house by chance.You can shake the bucket of legos around, throw them up in the air, or heck, stick them in the dryer for a cycle to try and make something. And maybe some pieces will stick together. But I can guarantee that you will not get a house without actually putting it together.



It's the same thing with creation and evolution. You can say that the earth was created by chance, that a bunch of parts collided or by chance created what we have...but does that really make any sense? For something to be made, and especially to be made in the intricate design in the manner that our earth has been, there has to be a creator.

khigh 1 child; Fort Sill, Oklahoma 8101 posts
23rd Nov '12

There is more to this than Evolution and Creation Theory. At school, my daughter can learn Darwin's Theory of Evolution and at home, she learns the Hindu creation story, which takes into account an evolutionary tract.

I don't see why Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive. Creation is about how the world was created, not how it came to be in it's present state unless you believe in a 6000 year old Earth.

As an Anthropologist, I cannot dismiss different culture's theories of creation, nor can I discount evolution. I believe in interspecies breeding between Homo Sapien Neandertalis and Homo Sapien Sapien. I believe that we have gotten to this point by changing to suit our environment, but I cannot say with fact that we can from apes. No Anthropologist will tell you that with certainty.

I have studied Darwin extensively and I think he was correct in HIS TIME, but that in the near future we will find a better explaination. Evolutionary Anthropology is a fast growing field and we uncover more and more evidence of interspecies breeding every day. Enough that they are working on reclassifying Neanderthal as a subspecies of Homo Sapien instead of its own species.

MysticWitchKat 2052 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting Boots+3:" Ok, intelligent design, let's go with this... How do you make anything out of a bucket of legos? Like, ... [snip!] ... to be made, and especially to be made in the intricate design in the manner that our earth has been, there has to be a creator."

Yes because mathematically eventually the right circumstances come together for that to happen. Some might argue the same for jesus, that eventually the correct set of circumstances would arise for him to spread a message. And that it was more timing and place over his message in general.

Boots+3 3 kids; Alberta 328 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting khigh:" There is more to this than Evolution and Creation Theory. At school, my daughter can learn Darwin's Theory ... [snip!] ... every day. Enough that they are working on reclassifying Neanderthal as a subspecies of Homo Sapien instead of its own species."


Actually, I agree with a lot of what you said...Creation is about how the world was created. And if I'm correct, you agree that there was some sort of a creation...?



The problem with Darwin's Theory is that they teach it as modern fact. And if Darwin was correct in his time, but wasn't actually totally accurate, why is it still being taught as a scientific theory...



Like I said, I agree with the theory of micro evolution, or the theory of how the world has evolved since creation. But I don't agree with the theory of macro evolution, which says that there was no actual creation.

khigh 1 child; Fort Sill, Oklahoma 8101 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting Boots+3:" Actually, I agree with a lot of what you said...Creation is about how the world was created. And if ... [snip!] ... has evolved since creation. But I don't agree with the theory of macro evolution, which says that there was no actual creation."


Yes, I believe the Hindu creation story.



The reason Darwin is taught is because while there are other theories of evolution, his is the easiest to understand. You don't start learning the other theories until college and even then most people don't get really into it unless you are a world history or anthropology major. I even have a hard time deciphering all of the evolutionary theories because I specialize in the Indian Subcontinent from 5000BCE to present day and am not a Paleoanthropologist who studies pre-history.



Macro evolution is even seperate from Creation. You are probably talking about the Big Bang Theory.



This was actually a good show on the theory of evolution, put out by the History Channel in 2005. I'll post part one and if you are interested, they have all the parts on YouTube.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfhf1p8WKDk



Boots+3 3 kids; Alberta 328 posts
23rd Nov '12
Quoting MysticWitchKat:" Yes because mathematically eventually the right circumstances come together for that to happen. Some ... [snip!] ... of circumstances would arise for him to spread a message. And that it was more timing and place over his message in general. "

Okay, let's say you're right. Mathamatically, maybe it is possible. Do you feel that it's possible through chemistry, or physics, or what?