Pages: 1 2

 

2006-08-31 22:00:59
dubbs
Member
+105|6894|Lexington, KY
I had this debate the other day.  Some asked me if creation and evolution should be taught in a science class.  I told him that creation should not be, but in the same since other theories of how life began on earth should.  I proposed that since we teach a theory that there may be other advance life forms in the Universe, then it is possible that life on Earth came from those life forms.  The guy stated this is not a valid theory because it does not have enough data to make it valid like evolution has.  I told the guy that at one time, evolution would have been in the same state, then should it have been tought in school during that time.  He stated yes.  So do you think other theories, excluding creation, should be taught in schools?

I personally say yes, if there are other theories that maybe true, and can be put though test then data collected, why not?  I can see that we can test and vaildate if life on Earth came from other aliens then so be it.


PS:  There is are two different versions of this theory that I have read about.  The first is that a bacteria type life form came to Earth via a meteorite, and the other states that advance alien life created life on Earth.  The second part of that theory I have heard multiple versions.  One is that Earth is a lab for an advance alien race, and there is the group Raelians who believe that aliens created humans in their likeness and religious text confusses this with in their text.
2006-09-01 04:26:45
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

There are theories with substantial evidence for them that numerous amino acids that fell to earth on meteorites combined with amino acids that had been created on earth and formed the early stages of life. It is a widely accepted possibility within evolution. These amino acids have been found on meteorites, so it's not as unfeasible as it sounds.
2006-09-01 05:51:41
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6817
The thing is that the majority of sensible logical reasonable people would have answered 'No' to your question about whether evolution should have been taught in schools when the theory of evolution had not been researched fully. He is a hypocrite.

The fact of the matter is theories regarding aliens have no body of evidence to support them and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as the theory of evolution, given how much evidence supports that theory. To answer your implied question: No, crackpot theories and alternative explanations to things should not be taught in the public education system unless there is sufficient evidence to support them and they are widely accepted by respected scientific and engineering insitutions.

Please note that my comments don't dismiss the fact that, although fairly implausible to me right now, aliens may have played a part in life on earth and that this theory might be endorsed and taught in schools at some distant point in the future.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-01 07:13:01)

2006-09-01 06:32:16
jonsimon
Member
+224|6757
No, theories as to the beginning of life are not taught in schools. Evolution is not a theory as to how life formed, it instead explains how life developed. Evolution does not explain where the first life in the oceans came from, it merely explains that life in the oceans slowly developed to what we are today.

Along those lines, we should not teach that life could have begun with aliens or gods.
2006-09-01 07:03:58
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7019|Argentina
I agree with that Evolution Theory must be taught in school, but other theories without significant proof must not.  The person who questions Evolution Theory today is a mental retarded.  It's a possible fact that other forms of life exist in the universe, but until we discover them, this should only be mentioned as a theory saying to students that there's no proof at all.
2006-09-01 07:13:14
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6998|Salt Lake City

I don't think it should be tought in a science class.  Teach in the class what we have studied and what have scientific evidence to back up (evolution).  Anything else should be left for philosophy classes.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-09-01 07:13:39)

2006-09-01 07:26:40
-botivix-
Damn
+23|6988|Not Scotland Anymore!
I think pupils should be made aware that these theories and explanations for life on earth exist, but should not be taught in detail about them. I know i wouldn't know about most theories if i didnt watch the discovery channel every now and again and then research the theories on the net at a later date. It doesn't take long to give a brief explanation of each theory, and that way you leave it up to the pupil to decide which theory he wants to believe in. Rather than dictating to him which is right, and which is wrong.

I'm refering to physics and science at a more advanced level though (ie college), not the mandatory science classes you take when still in high school/secondary school.
2006-09-01 07:36:48
jonsimon
Member
+224|6757

-botivix- wrote:

I think pupils should be made aware that these theories and explanations for life on earth exist, but should not be taught in detail about them. I know i wouldn't know about most theories if i didnt watch the discovery channel every now and again and then research the theories on the net at a later date. It doesn't take long to give a brief explanation of each theory, and that way you leave it up to the pupil to decide which theory he wants to believe in. Rather than dictating to him which is right, and which is wrong.

I'm refering to physics and science at a more advanced level though (ie college), not the mandatory science classes you take when still in high school/secondary school.
Eh, as a current student, I think that would drastically hurt the curriculum. The time and energy it takes to teach just the basics of any area of science are unbelievable. And teachers still can't explain simple things. For example, when was the last time someone told you that blood vessels are actually muscle?
2006-09-01 07:41:34
jimmanycricket
EBC Member
+56|6917|Cambridge, England
should this be taught in school, its a theory.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons … ociety.htm
2006-09-01 07:43:52
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6817

jimmanycricket wrote:

should this be taught in school, its a theory.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons … ociety.htm
It's a 'theory' that has been irrefutably proven to be completely baseless and incorrect!
2006-09-01 07:47:19
jimmanycricket
EBC Member
+56|6917|Cambridge, England

CameronPoe wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

should this be taught in school, its a theory.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons … ociety.htm
It's a 'theory' that has been irrefutably proven to be completely baseless and incorrect!
That was my point...
2006-09-01 07:49:04
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7054

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I don't think it should be tought in a science class.  Teach in the class what we have studied and what have scientific evidence to back up (evolution).  Anything else should be left for philosophy classes.
Creation is for religious studies class.  Evolution for science class.  Other things like artificial insemination by aliens, for philosophy class.
2006-09-01 08:14:03
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

People are just dismissing this as radical - which is very wrong of them.

It sounds stupid, I'll grant you that, but actually has basis for serious consideration and is one of the most plausible explainations for the creation of life. The point at which chemical evolution became biological evolution.

The most famous meteorite found to contain amino acids was the Murchison meteorite found in Australia.

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

It is quite possible that some of the amino acids that were crucial to life being formed on Earth arrived on this planet by meteorite and combined with others that had formed naturally here to form simple polypeptides and even RNA.
2006-09-01 08:17:57
jonsimon
Member
+224|6757

Bertster7 wrote:

People are just dismissing this as radical - which is very wrong of them.

It sounds stupid, I'll grant you that, but actually has basis for serious consideration and is one of the most plausible explainations for the creation of life. The point at which chemical evolution became biological evolution.

The most famous meteorite found to contain amino acids was the Murchison meteorite found in Australia.

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

It is quite possible that some of the amino acids that were crucial to life being formed on Earth arrived on this planet by meteorite and combined with others that had formed naturally here to form simple polypeptides and even RNA.
It's possible, but its equally as possible at this point that they were already present on earth. We really have no clue at all.

And that is just why we don't teach the origins of life in school. We don't know how life began, but we do know it evolved and developed into what we see today. This is why we teach evolution.

We should not, and do not, teach theories as to the origins of life because we are not able to make informed conjecture on the matter as of this time.
2006-09-01 08:19:07
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6817

jimmanycricket wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

should this be taught in school, its a theory.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons … ociety.htm
It's a 'theory' that has been irrefutably proven to be completely baseless and incorrect!
That was my point...
Your point being that evolution should be taught in school because it has a significant and growing body of evidence to suggest that the theory is accurate and most probably correct? If so, I agree.
2006-09-01 08:43:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

jonsimon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

People are just dismissing this as radical - which is very wrong of them.

It sounds stupid, I'll grant you that, but actually has basis for serious consideration and is one of the most plausible explainations for the creation of life. The point at which chemical evolution became biological evolution.

The most famous meteorite found to contain amino acids was the Murchison meteorite found in Australia.

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

It is quite possible that some of the amino acids that were crucial to life being formed on Earth arrived on this planet by meteorite and combined with others that had formed naturally here to form simple polypeptides and even RNA.
It's possible, but its equally as possible at this point that they were already present on earth. We really have no clue at all.

And that is just why we don't teach the origins of life in school. We don't know how life began, but we do know it evolved and developed into what we see today. This is why we teach evolution.

We should not, and do not, teach theories as to the origins of life because we are not able to make informed conjecture on the matter as of this time.
Where life came from is an important issue and should be at least touched on briefly in schools, particularly at an A-level equivilent level for biology and chemistry students. Differing theories should be shown as just theories. They shouldn't be taught as what happened as evolution should be (and is everywhere but Kansas), but for students in that field I think it is important to show plausible theories for these things. It is being shown these sorts of theories that give students the option to look into these fields and maybe one day find the answers to these very questions. Different theories are taught in physics, why not in biology/chemistry?
2006-09-01 08:49:02
Jenkinsbball
Banned
+149|6810|USA bitches!
Nothing should be taught in school. Creationism is a tool for brainwashing the youth and evolution, well, evolution is ok. Fucking relgious nuts.
2006-09-01 09:10:57
jonsimon
Member
+224|6757

Bertster7 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

People are just dismissing this as radical - which is very wrong of them.

It sounds stupid, I'll grant you that, but actually has basis for serious consideration and is one of the most plausible explainations for the creation of life. The point at which chemical evolution became biological evolution.

The most famous meteorite found to contain amino acids was the Murchison meteorite found in Australia.

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

It is quite possible that some of the amino acids that were crucial to life being formed on Earth arrived on this planet by meteorite and combined with others that had formed naturally here to form simple polypeptides and even RNA.
It's possible, but its equally as possible at this point that they were already present on earth. We really have no clue at all.

And that is just why we don't teach the origins of life in school. We don't know how life began, but we do know it evolved and developed into what we see today. This is why we teach evolution.

We should not, and do not, teach theories as to the origins of life because we are not able to make informed conjecture on the matter as of this time.
Where life came from is an important issue and should be at least touched on briefly in schools, particularly at an A-level equivilent level for biology and chemistry students. Differing theories should be shown as just theories. They shouldn't be taught as what happened as evolution should be (and is everywhere but Kansas), but for students in that field I think it is important to show plausible theories for these things. It is being shown these sorts of theories that give students the option to look into these fields and maybe one day find the answers to these very questions. Different theories are taught in physics, why not in biology/chemistry?
Are we talking about the same levels of schooling? If you're referring to highschool and under, there simply aren't the resources to teach anything that isnt absolutely necessary. Different theories are not taught in physics. My physics class consisted of a whole medly of basic equations. The only theory we even touched on was general relativity, and none of us understood it. If you're talking college, sure, teach whatever you want, theres nothing to make the students attend class.
2006-09-01 09:16:31
HeavyMetalDave
Metal Godz
+107|6920|California
Heres the sad truth, one day aliens took a shit on our planet as they passed by, we evolved from the alien poo. I can prove this coz I always feel shitty.

Dont laugh coz for all we know this could be true.
2006-09-01 09:29:00
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

jonsimon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


It's possible, but its equally as possible at this point that they were already present on earth. We really have no clue at all.

And that is just why we don't teach the origins of life in school. We don't know how life began, but we do know it evolved and developed into what we see today. This is why we teach evolution.

We should not, and do not, teach theories as to the origins of life because we are not able to make informed conjecture on the matter as of this time.
Where life came from is an important issue and should be at least touched on briefly in schools, particularly at an A-level equivilent level for biology and chemistry students. Differing theories should be shown as just theories. They shouldn't be taught as what happened as evolution should be (and is everywhere but Kansas), but for students in that field I think it is important to show plausible theories for these things. It is being shown these sorts of theories that give students the option to look into these fields and maybe one day find the answers to these very questions. Different theories are taught in physics, why not in biology/chemistry?
Are we talking about the same levels of schooling? If you're referring to highschool and under, there simply aren't the resources to teach anything that isnt absolutely necessary. Different theories are not taught in physics. My physics class consisted of a whole medly of basic equations. The only theory we even touched on was general relativity, and none of us understood it. If you're talking college, sure, teach whatever you want, theres nothing to make the students attend class.
I'm not too familiar with US schooling systems but I am talking about A-level equivalents 16-18, which I think is the same as high school. In A-level physics you learn about special and general relativity and quantum theory, why not learn theories in biology/chemistry too?
2006-09-01 10:20:19
Noobzorz
You are what you eat.
+8|6740
Regardless, theories with no hard evidence (creationism, insemination by aliens), etc. have absolutely no place in schools whatsoever.
2006-09-01 10:34:10
jonsimon
Member
+224|6757

Bertster7 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Where life came from is an important issue and should be at least touched on briefly in schools, particularly at an A-level equivilent level for biology and chemistry students. Differing theories should be shown as just theories. They shouldn't be taught as what happened as evolution should be (and is everywhere but Kansas), but for students in that field I think it is important to show plausible theories for these things. It is being shown these sorts of theories that give students the option to look into these fields and maybe one day find the answers to these very questions. Different theories are taught in physics, why not in biology/chemistry?
Are we talking about the same levels of schooling? If you're referring to highschool and under, there simply aren't the resources to teach anything that isnt absolutely necessary. Different theories are not taught in physics. My physics class consisted of a whole medly of basic equations. The only theory we even touched on was general relativity, and none of us understood it. If you're talking college, sure, teach whatever you want, theres nothing to make the students attend class.
I'm not too familiar with US schooling systems but I am talking about A-level equivalents 16-18, which I think is the same as high school. In A-level physics you learn about special and general relativity and quantum theory, why not learn theories in biology/chemistry too?
Because in the US highschool education is of such a low quality that increasing curriculum to include speculation is an unreasonable request.
2006-09-02 01:18:48
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

Noobzorz wrote:

Regardless, theories with no hard evidence (creationism, insemination by aliens), etc. have absolutely no place in schools whatsoever.
Absolutely - because both of the theories you mentioned are silly and baseless. I'm talking about the possibility of amino acids from meteors (meteorites have been found to be covered in amino acids) kick starting chain reactions that led to life. Ths is not a baseless claim and would only take a very short while to teach, or rather express as a possibility.

Creationism, is not a possibility. Insemination by aliens, now thats almost as silly as creationism.

jonsimon wrote:

Because in the US highschool education is of such a low quality that increasing curriculum to include speculation is an unreasonable request.
Fair enough. Maybe a bit more spending on education would be a good idea?
2006-09-02 06:38:40
jonsimon
Member
+224|6757

Bertster7 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Because in the US highschool education is of such a low quality that increasing curriculum to include speculation is an unreasonable request.
Fair enough. Maybe a bit more spending on education would be a good idea?
Damn right. Unfortunantly I think the problems are a little deeper rooted. We seem to have some sort of a problem with finding intelligent teachers.
2006-09-08 08:03:55
dubbs
Member
+105|6894|Lexington, KY
First thanks for not making this a evolution vs creationism thread.

Second, my original post was just an example, basically should other theories that can be tested scientifically be taught in schools?  Seems that most people think that we should either make students aware of the other theories, or wait until they have proof of being possible.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard