r/DebateEvolution • u/GigaTune • 4d ago
Without teaching evolution in schools, there can be no biology classes.
Trying to teach a biology class without ever mentioning evolution is like trying to teach an electrical engineering class without ever mentioning electricity. It doesn't work.
21
u/Realsorceror Paleo Nerd 4d ago
My 6th grade biology teacher did not believe in evolution, and told us as much on our first day. She gave a very stupid creationist version of it, saying arms and legs can't pop out of an amoeba.
I don't remember much of what we covered in that class, but I do remember going over the differences between plant and animal cells, human anatomy and organs, dissecting a frog, that kind of stuff.
Worst part was, she was probably one of the better teachers at that school. Obviously, she *should* have taught evolution in a biology class. But you can definitely fill a year without it.
-13
u/Darbsaabnele 4d ago
Macro shouldnāt be taught as āfactā. And it should be taught with caveats around it, including competing āhypothesisā.
20
u/LordOfFigaro 4d ago
Macro shouldnāt be taught as āfactā.
Macroevolution is by definition evolution at or above the species level. It is a fact and should be taught as such because we've directly observed this happen. Here's a list:
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
That list is decades old. We've only observed more speciation events since. Evolution is directly observed.
-15
u/Darbsaabnele 4d ago
Anyone serious and objective on this topic knows there are lots of questions on the macro evo theory. It should be taught accordingly, along with competing hypothesis. That's all I'm stating.
18
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
There aren't any competing hypotheses.
11
-10
14
u/LordOfFigaro 4d ago
Anyone serious and objective on this topic knows
there are lots of questions on thethat macro evotheoryis directly observed fact. It should be taught accordingly,along with competing hypothesis. That's all I'm stating.FTFY
-6
u/Darbsaabnele 4d ago
The scientific evidence is what matters, not whether you agree or disagree.
12
u/LordOfFigaro 4d ago
The scientific evidence is that macroevolution is fact that has been directly observed multiple times.
11
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
If that's true, we certainly shouldn't be teaching creation myths, as there is ZERO scientific evidence.
-1
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
You obviously have kept your eyes closed on it over the last several decades.
9
u/LordOfFigaro 3d ago
Name one competing hypothesis for the theory of evolution that is falsifiable with testable, repeatable predictions for which we have statistically significant scientific evidence that has passed through peer review in reputable scientific journals for the field.
4
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
Unfortunately I've had my eyes open, so I've had to witness the development of such nonsense masquerading as science. It's not even a good masquerade, because the people who develop these "theories" are often science ignoramuses.
Why not just rely on faith instead of pretending? It's pathetic.
0
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
It takes a lot more faith believing in multiuniverses, string theory, and complex code development by natural processes than a non-materialist worldview dude. just sayin'. Your faith may be ignoring the evidence.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Ok_Performer50 3d ago
What is the competing hypothesis?
-2
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
Unrefuteable evidence pointing to design. Multiple levels.
10
u/Munrot07 3d ago
Firstly, it's irrefutable, not "unrefuteable". Amazing how you managed to make 3 different mistakes in a single word.
Secondly, as a macroevolutionary biologist I have a few questions:
1) What do you think macroevolution is? How does it differ from microevolution? Nearly everyone that denies it does not understand it. I would happily wager you are the same.
2) What is your scientific background that allows you to claim all macroevolutionary biologists and corresponding literature is wrong, and you are correct? I'm sure you wouldn't dream of denying an entire branch of science without an appropriate set of qualifications, level of understanding and experience in the field right?
3) Please provide the examples of published peer reviewed literature from respected journals that give irrefutable evidence disproving macroevolution and proving intelligent design. Again, I'm sure you wouldn't make the claim without having read a significant amount of peer reviewed literature that you could reference for us and you definitely wouldn't just go "there is evidence" without backing up your statement.
I look forward to your reply.
8
u/ThurneysenHavets š§¬ Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 3d ago
Specifics please! One level is enough.
3
4
5
u/JadedPilot5484 2d ago
Creationism isnāt a completing theory, it isnāt even a theory or based in science itās religous mythology. There is no controversy in evolutionary biology, and no ācompeting theoriesā lmao what are you even talking about
-1
u/Darbsaabnele 2d ago
Dumbest comment of the day. You might be convinced of your worldview , but thereās hundreds of millions who arenāt
2
u/emailforgot 2d ago
That doesn't mean there are "competing theories". Some arcane ritual you cooked up after eating some fungus isn't anywhere, even remotely, in the same world as scientific theories.
1
2d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/emailforgot 2d ago
To not acknowledge competing theories challenging naturalist materialist worldview
Such as?
1
2
13
u/Russell1A 4d ago
You are quite right that nature does not respect the difference between macro and micro evolution as in the case of Hatena, Paulinella and Euglina.
So artificially spliting evolution between macro and micro should not be taught. Of more use would be teaching the close relationship between evolution and ecology with more emphasis on environmental pressure and less on natural selection, as evolutionary theory has advanced since the nineteenth century.
-4
u/Darbsaabnele 4d ago
Micro evolution - variation within a species - is not debated. Macro is where the debate is at. MUtations /natural selection being challenged as lacking the creative power to ācreateā new species.
7
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
The debate is only there because creationists don't understand evolution and don't like their myth being dismissed as a myth. Nobody else is arguing this absurd macro/micro nonsense.
7
u/Russell1A 3d ago
So far I have yet to receive an answer from a creationist who believes in this difference between macro and micro evolution, whether a species arising from mutualistic entanglement is micro or macro evolution.
One day I might get an answer about this so I can delve further to explain that nature does not respect this difference.
3
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
Probably a long wait for that, might be around the time of the second coming...
I love the idea of Gandalf appearing at the point of speciation - "None shall pass!". I think that would also mean Gandalf is Jesus.
3
u/Xemylixa š§¬ took an optional bio exam at school bc i liked bio 3d ago
Well he was created as a messianic archetype, soooo
-2
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
Has your head been in the sand last thirty years?!? Do a little work to see that you are v misinformed.
8
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 3d ago
What papers in the last thirty years have disproven macroevolution. I sort of pay attention to the Nobel Prizes as well as Science and Nature, and havenāt seen anything. Help me out.
6
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
I've read much of the garbage that you and yours claim is science, and you've got nothing of substance. No point arguing with you, as faith is the basis of your beliefs, not evidence.
-1
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
Not going to argue either. You're ignoring the evidence. this isn't a faith based discussion or POV.
2
6
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 4d ago
Ummm, natural selection and mutations lead to new species
Examples of natural selection playing a part in speciation include: apple maggot flies, the big bird finch, threespine sticklebacks, and London Underground mosquitoes.
The best examples of a single mutation leading to a new species are polyploidy plants, but letās say you want a mutation to change a gene. the Euhadran snails of Japanese are your best example. the snails experiencing a mutation that caused their shells to form a different way, making it impossible to interbreed.
4
u/Russell1A 4d ago
Is mutualistic entanglement giving rise to a new species as I outlined in the organisms in my previous post macro or micro evolution?
1
u/melympia š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
If that were true, Noah would have had to bring every single animal species alive today onto his ark. Not just every family, every. Single. Species.
Of which we have an estimated 7+ million, and almost 1 million described as of today.
Care to explain how he might have managed that?
0
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
Mutations/natural selection - as the ācreativeā process behind macro evo that explains the existence of 7m+ different species today is neither proven, and highly challenged today with the scientific evidence now before us.
And it should objectively be taught as such.
Thatās just āsticking with the science and the factsā. Do the deep dive and check for yourself. Many evo biologists - in Europe especially, where itās less political to do so - are raising the issues and acknowledging need for something new. The fact ones here canāt accept that reality based on ideological reasons doesnāt change reality of where it sits today.
5
u/melympia š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
You really should read a European high school biology book, just to keep it simple.Ā
That being said, you have been lied to. Here in Europe, there is no discussion about evolution. (Unless you meetĀ a Jehova's Witness. Who, by and large, are religious fundamentalists.) In Germany, at least, it's part of the syllabus - and has been for decades. I graduated in 2000, with biology as a focus subject ("Leistungskurs" - IYKYK). We had it right after genetics and some ecology basics, if my memory isn't very faulty. Yes, at an equivalent of A+, this was my best subject.
However, do you know what Europe does not have? Nearly as many religious fundamentalists as the US. With not nearly the same influence.
1
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
...and highly challenged today with the scientific evidence now before us.
Challenged by who? And what evidence is so problematic for Random Mutation + Natural Selection?
You get zero points for anything along the lines of "look it up".
1
u/emailforgot 2d ago
Mutations/natural selection - as the ācreativeā process behind macro evo that explains the existence of 7m+ different species today is neither proven
According to?
Use your words.
and highly challenged today with the scientific evidence now before us.
Give me 3 papers from legitimate, respected scientific journals that do this.
1
8
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
So in your model of evolution traits are passed on and mutations occur etc, then it just stops?
Why would evolution decide not to continue beyond species level? How? It's totally absurd and requires massive cognitive dissonance that only comes from faith.
Creation isn't a hypothethis in the scientific sense - a hypothesis must be testable. Biology is science, so let's let science teachers teach science, and religion can be taught by religious teachers.
0
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
No, that is not the premise.
Variations within species ( āmicro-evolutionā) is not driven by mutations and natural selection, the evo ācreative processā.
Mutations/natural selection is proving deficient at both micro and macro levels. And the DNA understanding explains why.
The Darwinian theory of evolution is being recognized as severely lacking, and requiring a rethink for this process. THAT is how it should be presented in classrooms, along with competing hypothesis. Which there are ā¦ backed by scientific evidence, whether you wear sunglasses or not.
10
u/LordOfFigaro 3d ago
Variations within species ( āmicro-evolutionā) is not driven by mutations and natural selection, the evo ācreative processā.
Only YECs think that the theory of evolution is just mutation and natural selection. Because they don't know what they're talking about.
And the DNA understanding explains why.
DNA evidence has consistently and repeatedly been the best evidence for the theory of evolution. DNA itself was a prediction of the theory of evolution that was shown to be fact.
Darwinian theory of evolution
Only YECs talk about "Darwinian" theory of evolution. Because they don't know what they're talking about. Darwin is irrelevant except in the historical sense. It's been over 150 years since Darwin wrote his book and he wasn't the only one working on it. If Darwin never existed, nothing would change about evolution other than the name of the person we credit for being the first to discover it.
along with competing hypothesis.
There are none. Name one competing hypothesis for the theory of evolution that is falsifiable with testable, repeatable predictions for which we have statistically significant scientific evidence that has passed through peer review in reputable scientific journals for the field.
backed by scientific evidence
All scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and none refutes it.
3
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
Thank you for providing this rebuttal, saves me doing for the umpteenth time :)
0
u/Darbsaabnele 3d ago
"All scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and none refutes it."
No it doesn't, and any scientist worth their weight and is following the evidence knows it. This statement is either out of ignorance or gaslighting.
YEC? Who's saying they are a YEC?
7
u/LordOfFigaro 3d ago
No it doesn't, and any scientist worth their weight and is following the evidence knows it. This statement is either out of ignorance or gaslighting.
If this actually was the case, you'd be presenting that evidence. I've asked it twice and am now asking it the third time. Name one competing hypothesis for the theory of evolution that is falsifiable with testable, repeatable predictions for which we have statistically significant scientific evidence that has passed through peer review in reputable scientific journals for the field.
YEC? Who's saying they are a YEC?
You're an ID proponent. ID is proven in court to be nothing but YEC that lies about its stance.
3
u/emailforgot 2d ago
No it doesn't, and any scientist worth their weight and is following the evidence knows it
Do show us.
1
3
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
I feel for American kids being taught that drivel. You should be ashamed of yourself. It's one thing being ignorant yourself, but forcing that ignorance on children is disgusting.
3
1
u/HelpfulHazz 3d ago
What "competing hypotheses" are you referring to, and can you please cite the academic studies that support them?
1
25
u/Munrot07 4d ago
As an ex teacher and currently evolutionary biologist and lecturer...you can 100% teach biology without ever mentioning evolution and it frequently happens. When I taught it the syllabus from age 11-16 contained like one proper section of evolution (and that was just natural selection, selective breeding and genetic engineering with some very basic inheritance) and it was incredibly isolated and was often taught last as it really wasn't needed to teach the rest.
I agree evolution should be taught more and more importantly taught better, but there is a lot of biology out there where evolution isn't needed to understand it, especially in at school level.
2
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 3d ago
The point is that if you teach biology without evolution, youāre not really teaching biology.
1
u/Munrot07 3d ago
Hard disagree. You are not teaching all aspects if biology sure but it's still biology. So many areas of biology do not require any knowledge of evolution, especially at school age. I know many people who've done biology degrees where evolution was a small very very basic module in first year and given their optional modules it never came up again. Do they not have a Biology degree? So many careers in Biology require no evolutionary knowledge. Yes evolution should be taught, but to argue it's impossible to teach Biology without evolution is just silly.
1
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 3d ago
Youāre teaching something, but it aināt biology.
2
u/Munrot07 3d ago
So cells aren't Biology? A food web isn't Biology? Anatomy isn't Biology? PCR isn't Biology? Transpiration and translocation aren't Biology? I could go on.
1
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 3d ago
Letās say you taught a āchemistryā class where you never talked about covalent bonds. You could spend a semester doing experiments, mixing chemicals together in various amounts and carefully analyzing the results. You could learn all the names of the elements, and the history of their discoveries. But you donāt believe in covalent bonds. Did you teach chemistry?
5
u/Munrot07 3d ago
Did you teach ALL of Chemistry? No. Did you still teach Chemistry? Yes (assuming you're not denying covalent bonds, which is a different issue). Plenty of Chemistry topics never mention covalent bonds (though I'd also argue bonding is far more of a requirement to understanding multiple topics of Chemistry, than evolution is for multiple topics of Biology).
To be very clear, I am not talking about not teaching evolution because you don't believe it. I'm saying that you can learn a lot of Biology perfectly well, especially at a school level, without evolution ever appearing.
The claim was teaching Biology without evolution is the same as teaching Electrical Engineering without electricity, it doesn't work. The analogy was flawed as it isn't the same requirement of knowledge and there is a lot of Biology that works without needing to understand evolution. For example, you can have a perfectly competent Doctor who doesn't know a thing about evolution. They still learnt and understood Biology.
Do you think any of my examples in the previous comment are not Biology? Would you tell a University that a module on cellular biology or anatomy is not Biology?
1
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 3d ago
Hey, the great thing about Reddit is that youāre allowed to be wrong. And you are. Youāre teaching about biology, but youāre not teaching biology. You might just as well show the students funny cat videos. Cats are animals. Isnāt that biology?
1
u/Munrot07 3d ago
"The great thing about Reddit is that youāre allowed to be wrong. And you are."
Right back at you.
This is going nowhere and I'm not going to bother wasting my time when you barely reply to any point I make (ignoring the questions and points you can't respond to) and just give stupid strawman arguments in return (funny cat videos vs. cellular biology, anatomy, transpiration and translocation etc. Like come on, what a completely ridiculous point).
Good day.
-1
0
u/wellwisher-1 2d ago
Evolution has its own "poof!" point called replicators. There are lots of steps before that starting point, called abiogenesis. How can you start so late and called that biology?
1
9
u/Briham86 š§¬ Falling Angel Meets the Rising Ape 4d ago
It would be like teaching math by having students memorize equations but not try to learn the how or why of it. Students could recite 2 + 2 = 4, but they couldn't describe what addition is or how it relates to other operations.
6
u/regular_modern_girl 4d ago
Unfortunately I think that actually describes the way a number of people learn math here in the US, math is another field that I think a lot of people end up having trouble relating to because itās often presented as a bunch of disconnected abstract concepts outside of their deeper context
8
u/Edgar_Brown 4d ago
Written on the floor of the science building in Notre Dame, a Catholic University, are the words of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky:
āNothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolutionā
0
u/Darbsaabnele 4d ago
notre Dame could be getting a new science building floor in the next decade. š
9
u/Edgar_Brown 4d ago
Catholic doctrine never has gone against evolution. Indeed, the pope has stated that evolution is a fact.
The church learned its lesson with Galileo, going against science is a loosing enterprise.
2
u/After_Ad9425 3d ago
Itās less about going about science and more so being stubborn by wrong science. The Catholic Church was the centerpiece funding and growth of science during the Middle Ages, which also essentially stole much of its foundation from the Romanās who stole their knowledge from Ancient Greece. It wasnāt that science was bad, but Galileoās model contradicted what science the church had accepted from past scholars, primarily the Ancient Greek astronomy.
That said they did kill a man over it, but I just want to make a distinction that they didnāt hate science or had a science versus religious aspect. Itās more so the equivalent of getting so mad over someone saying that dinosaurs having feathers instead of scales you kill your opposition.
2
u/ThurneysenHavets š§¬ Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 3d ago
but I just want to make a distinction that they didnāt hate science or had a science versus religious aspect
It absolutely did, though. Galileo was explicitly persecuted over "heresy" and over holding views that contradicted Scripture.
1
u/Edgar_Brown 3d ago
You are not wrong, but you have to look beyond the anachronisms.
āScienceā and āreligionā are modern inventions, words that didnāt really exist in their current form until at least a couple centuries ago much after Galileoās death. Before Descartes, Hume, and Newton all we had were different aspects of philosophy. Copernicus, Galileo, and even Newton were natural philosophers.
This doesnāt mean that science, the process, didnāt exist even in prehistoric times. But it was indistinguishable from religion itself.
Theology became separate from philosophy around that same time.
2
u/JadedPilot5484 2d ago
That not quite true, no pope has acknowledged that evolution is a fact, they know they would loose many Catholics if they said that. Instead the closest the have come is saying āevolution is more than just a theoryā and āevolution is not incompatible with Catholic doctrineā
The church allows for belief in ātheistic evolutionā but not naturalistic non guided evolution, and teaches old earth creationism but rejects young earth creationism.
Pope John Paul II (1996): In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he noted that new knowledge and research findings led to the recognition of evolution as "more than a hypothesis".
Pope Pius XII (1950): In the encyclical Humani Generis, he stated that there is no absolute contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine, provided that God's role in creation and the special creation of the human soul are maintained.
Pope Francis (2014): He reaffirmed that evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the doctrine of creation, stating that God is "not a magician with a magic wand".
0
u/Edgar_Brown 2d ago
That synopsis doesnāt address the resulting international controversy around Pope John Paul II message.
Theologians, particularly anglophone theologians, were up in arms after those statements and the press coverage of them.
The way the Vatican addressed this controversy left very little room for misunderstandings and equivocation around the basic point that evolution is both a theory and a fact.
2
u/JadedPilot5484 2d ago
Thatās simply false, The Vatican does not officially declare evolution as a purely material "fact," but rather accepts it as a valid scientific theory that is not incompatible with Catholic faith as long as its a version with of theistic evolution. The Vatican has never accepted evolution as fact or ever stated as such, and they only accept theistic evolution /old earth creationist models not the scientific theory of evolution.
0
u/Edgar_Brown 2d ago
Read your own sources, read about the controversy. Stop hiding behind your own assumed word meanings and interpretations.
-7
u/TiaxRulesAll2024 4d ago
Galileo had errors in his model. The church wanted him
To go back and draft. He decided to be an ass7
u/ThurneysenHavets š§¬ Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 3d ago
Revisionist nonsense. He was threatened with torture and placed under life-long house arrest. Don't white-wash Church history.
-4
u/TiaxRulesAll2024 3d ago edited 3d ago
He was placed under house arrest after insulting the pope in 1632
He did not receive any abuse during the initial 1615 conclusions
Timelines matter
He literally still has permission to write about astronomy as late as 1630, 15 years after his earlier works were considered heresy
4
u/ThurneysenHavets š§¬ Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 3d ago
He was placed under house arrest after insulting the pope in 1632
This is absolutely false. He was placed under house arrest for continuing to defend heliocentric heresy, in violation of previous orders to stop doing so. His supposed insults towards the pope weren't mentioned.
The 1633 sentence is freely available online. You should read it.
-1
u/TiaxRulesAll2024 3d ago
It is literally not false.
He insulted the pope. He was placed under house arrest. In that order.
He had made decades of research between the 1580s-1629 with censoring.
He was given permission to mention Copernicusās model, but only as theoretical as late as 1630.
The church didnāt punish him until after he decided to insult the pope.
My timeline is correct
Itās very obvious why they might leave out that detail, considering the manner in which he chose to insult the pope. The church decided to focus on the heresy and not the potential blasphemy
7
u/ThurneysenHavets š§¬ Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 3d ago
Let's reformulate without the euphemisms.
A cartel of violent bigots forced Galileo to stop defending a scientific hypothesis for religious reasons. He was then accused of defending it anyway, put on trial, and found guilty of heresy and only of heresy.
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
These people clearly didn't feel the need to use Galileo's alleged lack of tact towards the Pope as an excuse for silencing him. It's interesting that their modern online apologists for some reason do.
1
u/JadedPilot5484 2d ago
It was considered heresy because the church banned all books and banned teaching relating to heliocentrism and Galileo was trying to prove heliocentric model was right and that went against official church doctrine.
The Catholic Church began lifting bans on heliocentrism in 1758 by removing books supporting it from the Index of Forbidden Books, formally permitted printing in 1822, dropped the last book bans in 1835, and officially admitted fault in the Galileo case in 1992.
-7
u/Darbsaabnele 4d ago
Oh, I know. But as macro gets disproven, both pope and RC will (again) be proven wrong in misrepresenting and/or undermining scriptures. š¤·āāļø
Have put the money down on the wrong horse .
7
u/TiaxRulesAll2024 4d ago
This little sneak is trying to gaslight people into thinking what he is saying is accepted by anyone who isnāt a loon
-1
6
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
Macroevolution isn't being disproven. But other than that, good point.
6
u/Edgar_Brown 4d ago
The Catholic Church has never adhered to Sola Scritura. So āundermining scriptureā is nonsensical in this context.
1
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 3d ago
Donāt know how macro has been or can get disproven, considering we have already directly observed it happening. Itās a bit like saying that space is getting disproven as another satellite launches right next to you.
2
4
u/OlasNah 4d ago
Lots of Christian universities manage it at a basic level. They focus on anatomy, they use scrubbed texts that avoid mentioning evolution or anything that might explain certain mechanisms with evolution. Most of it is online canvas stuff that allows them to avoid physical texts because they don't want that stuff circulating to the public.
0
5
u/Thysanuran 4d ago
Speaking as a biology teacher, you can talk about biological facts without mentioning evolution, but you cannot teach biology well without teaching evolution. Can you teach biology without talking about cells? Of course! In fact, people studied life for thousands of years before they knew about cells. But if you teach a regular biology class without mentioning cells, you are committing educational malpractice. Evolution is more fundamentally important to understanding biology than are cells.
1
7
u/anonymous_teve 4d ago
It's not at all like that, you can learn the principles of cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and a lot more without reference to evolution. That said, it would be a big gap in a holistic biology course.
2
u/Omoikane13 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
you can learn the principles of...genetics...without reference to evolution
Please, go ahead.
9
u/Long-Opposite-5889 4d ago
I have to disagree. Biology predates evolution theory by a lot. While evolution explains a lot of things there's still way to many things to teach that can be learned without mentioning evolution.
1
u/AnimistKlaus 4d ago
Sure you can teach about cells or animals or plants or whatever. But you also have to do some serious ear-plugging and eye-covering not to mention any weird patterns/similarities between organisms. You can definitely do thatā-thousands of biology instructors do it every day.
3
u/vastly101 4d ago
I would say you cannot teach similarities and differences at a genetic level without evolution. You cannot teach it coherently, but the micro parts you can. It's the similarity and the thousands of genes that generally all tell the same separation timeline among multiple species that never gets shared, and that to me is the most awe-inspiring aspect of biology: how our history is in our DNA.
3
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
You could teach Biology, but it would be incomplete. Not teaching evolution would leave a pretty big hole.
3
u/Comfortable-Dare-307 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
You can teach biology without evolution, but you can't understand biology without evolution. It would be like learning physics without Newton's laws of motion. The only reason creationists are against evolution is because they know if evolution is true, it disproves all of creationism and Christianity.
1
u/PeyredB 4d ago
Well that's what they think anyway, because they're black-and-white thinkers. Evolution being true does invalidate most forms of creationism, but doesn't invalidate Christianity. It just disproves certain interpretations of Genesis (plus scattered bits elsewhere).
2
1
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
Nothing can invalidate Christianity, it's insulated from reason. Denial, moving the goal posts, revisions - all these things are easy when it's all about faith, and they've all been done for the entirety of Christianity's history.
2
u/PeyredB 3d ago
And I don't really have much problem with religion as such. It's one thing to believe something that has no solid evidence for or against...but it's something very different to believe in something that's contradicted by the evidence.
2
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
I agree. I just think many religious people begin with faith, then fit everything else around it.
3
u/wtanksleyjr Theistic Evolutionist 4d ago
You can use biology, and therefore teach most of the elements of biology, without evolution. What you can't do is understand it. It's like learning the locations of stars without knowing about deep time and gravity; it's just a bunch of brute facts.
6
u/jnpha š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
Evolutionary biology turns disparate biological facts ("stamp collecting") into an explanatory and investigative field; a paper on that:
... Most introductory biology courses are insufficient to establish competency in evolutionary biology. Premedical students need evolution courses, possibly ones that emphasize medically relevant aspects. In medical school, evolutionary biology should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences. This will require a course that reviews basic principles and specific medical applications, followed by an integrated presentation of evolutionary aspects that apply to each disease and organ system. Evolutionary biology is not just another topic vying for inclusion in the curriculum; it is an essential foundation for a biological understanding of health and disease.
Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine | PNAS
2
u/Usual_Charity8561 4d ago
Well, that's where you have to separate evolution as an origin and evolution as a process. I agree that evolution as a process is an obvious result of the rules of biology (reproduction+inheritance+death=evolution). But teaching it as origin isn't necessary to that understanding. Universal common ancestry is what is meant by evolution as an origin, and that can easily be denied in full knowledge of the biological facts we have at hand.
2
u/regular_modern_girl 4d ago
It depends imo on what level of biology weāre talking about, and which subfields. If youāre teaching a lot of aspects of biology at an elementary school, possibly even middle school level, you can definitely avoid mentioning evolution by keeping everything very surface level, however with some topics avoiding accidentally alluding to evolution can get kind of difficult. If you try to go more in-depth at all, like even just high school level of depth (or at least what I think high school level should be), it starts to get really tough to surreptitiously avoid any reference to evolution unless youāre only keeping to certain very specific topics. In general, I think avoiding any mention of evolution forces teachers to remain very superficial in how they approach most biology topics, and to willfully ignore a lot of important context, without which biology feels more like a random assortment of barely-connected facts (like the infamous āthe mitochondrion is the powerhouse of the cellā, without actually clearly explaining what purpose it serves or where it came from) that are generally going to be harder for students to relate to or find any interest in.
A lot of people Iāve met who only learned biology in primary school either from teachers who didnāt believe in evolution, or in an American public school district in a state in which teaching of evolution is limited or forbidden, often say that they found biology in school to be the least interesting and most confusing and generally hard-to-relate-to science, which to me is crazy bc biology should be one of the most relatable sciences in my opinion, as obviously we deal with our bodies every moment of our lives and constantly interact with other living beings, but in their cases they often felt like important context that tied it together was missing, and it just felt like a random assemblage of facts that they had to memorize with no larger theory behind them.
Obviously you can memorize a lot of these facts without understanding the deep connections between them all that evolution provides, though, as anyone who goes through medical school has to memorize a lot of facts about biological systems, and yet a shocking number of medical professionals in the US donāt believe in evolution (and of course there is also an even larger issue here of medicine often not actually incorporating a deep understanding of the life sciences to the extent that it imo should).
2
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 4d ago
You can teach biology without evolution the same way to can teach math up to calculus without number theory. Everything works superficially without it, but getting into the real structure and "why it works" requires it.
1
u/Tombobalomb 4d ago
You can it's just that biology doesn't really make overall sense without it. You can absolutely learn the mechanics of any given element of it without referbecnig evolution though
1
u/PeyredB 4d ago
I would say it's more like teaching chemistry without teaching the periodic table. Sure you can teach some things about chemistry without the table, and get away with it in a short time like a semester in high school, but much of it really won't fit together since you'll be missing a central concept that makes it all make sense.
1
u/Noodelgawd 4d ago
That's silly. It absolutely should be taught but it's absolutely not essential to a high school level understanding of the vast majority of other topics in biology.
1
1
u/Mister_Ape_1 2d ago
Obviously if we go by a creationist framework everything works through magic and science itself is useless. Nothing is as hypocritical as creationist "science".
Thanks God in at least Europe they actually teach evolution in schools.
1
1
1
1
u/New_Honeydew3182 2d ago
Is this really a thing in the US or anywhere in world?
This is so dangerously stupid
1
1
u/VaHi_Inst_Tech 1d ago
I will probably get downvoted here, but I am not sure this is true. Some others here agree with me. Most biology in the natural world is microbial/archaeal. Most biology in modern research and in classes is related human physiology. Carl Woese used to get really exercised about the absence of evolution from the discipline of biology. My research lab focuses intensely on evolution and wish it were not so. But I teach biochemistry; evolution really does comes up in biochemistry. We teach all about hemoglobin but other than saying it is related to myoglobin, never discuss its ancestry. My wife is a molecular biologist (signalling) and evolution is hardly a part of molecular biology. There furthest they get from a human is a mouse (ok maybe a fruit fly or a fungus, but never an archaean). And my son is a cell biologist and evolution hardly comes up there.
I think biology would be more coherent and understandable to students if it were structured around evolution. But it is not necessary.
One more thing. I see in this thread a recurrent theme, which is that the origins of life (we don't call it abiogenesis) is not evolution. Please stop that. There is a discontinuous model in which chemistry produces RNA, then RNA initiates evolution. This is a model, not a fact. There are other models in which chemical evolution merges continuously with biological evolution. This is my world and I personally find those models more compelling than the RNA world. The origins of life is (was) a chemically evolutionary process of which we have very little understanding (my view). Biopolymers arose by evolution. We don't know how, but the evidence for that is clear. Darwinian evolution requires biopolymers.
1
0
u/Uncynical_Diogenes š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
Thatās like saying there can be no physics courses without shoving Maxwellās full set of equations into freshmenās faces.
Obviously there can be.
There is a reason we donāt teach the most complicated concepts before the simpler ones, and thatās because that would be really stupid pedagogy.
2
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
Evolution isn't a complicated concept at all, unless you confuse kids with nonsense about creation. I had an okay grasp at age 4, because my parents explained it.
Your analogy is poor, evolutionary theory helps all the rest of biology make sense easier than without it.
-2
u/Automatic-Throat-880 āØCreationism 3d ago
You could just teach the truth
5
u/CrisprCSE2 3d ago
So teach evolution, got it.
-4
u/Automatic-Throat-880 āØCreationism 3d ago
No, teach about how God created the earth and all creatures in it. Macroevolution is a lie made up by people desperate to disprove the Bible and only has fabricated evidence to back it up
3
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 3d ago
Fabricating evidence is a pretty bold accusation. Remember, there have been hundreds of research papers that have been peer reviewed and published affirming the existence of macroevolution. Do you have a way to show it has all been fabricated? It isnāt even enough to come up with evidence that a fabrication has at some point happened. That has been the case in every field of science including ones I bet you accept, and whooooooboy has there been a long history of fraud, fabrication, and deception in the name of god and the Bible. No, you are making the claim that it ONLY HAS fabricated evidence. If you canāt support that, then you are guilty of falsehood.
Now, for us to even consider that āgod created the earth and all creatures in itā, you would need actual positive evidence that isnāt base on disproving something you donāt like. You would need to show evidence that it happened, and (very important) how. To date, every single time I have asked a creationist to provide a single confirmed example of a method of action, mechanism, or pathway by which something supernatural has ever occurred, they have always run. Can you break that pattern by providing one so that we know supernatural and god is even a possibility?
3
u/ThurneysenHavets š§¬ Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 3d ago
people desperate to disprove the Bible
Like all major Christian denominations?
3
u/CrisprCSE2 3d ago
No, teach about how God created the earth and all creatures in it
Well, that would be teaching a lie.
Macroevolution is a lie
Macroevolution is directly observed. But you don't know what the word means.
-3
u/Automatic-Throat-880 āØCreationism 3d ago
Microevolution has never been observed. People just assume that microevolution means that macroevolution is possible. So you really think that the incredibly fine-tuned intricacies of nature coming about by complete accident is more likely than God creating everything?
3
u/CrisprCSE2 3d ago
Microevolution has never been observed
You don't think mutations happen? What?
People just assume that microevolution means that macroevolution is possible
No, I assume that the direct observation of macroevolution means that macroevolution is possible.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant to evolution.
0
u/Automatic-Throat-880 āØCreationism 3d ago
Sorry, that was meant to say MACROevolution has never been observed. How is it irrelevant? You just donāt want to admit that your belief in evolution requires just as much faith in the unknown as creationism
3
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
Macroevolution, speciation and beyond has been observed, in the lab and in the wild.
3
u/CrisprCSE2 3d ago
that was meant to say MACROevolution has never been observed
But it has been observed. Repeatedly.
2
u/Medium_Judgment_891 2d ago
Itās always hilarious when creationists use the word āfaithā as a pejorative.
Youāre telling on yourself, buddy.
2
u/KillerSpreet š§¬ Curious Ape 3d ago
Look up ring species. They are an original population that got separated and reproduced among their own group to the point where they canāt reproduce with the other group. Reproductive isolation, which evolution predicts.
2
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
So, for more than 200 years thousands of scientists around the world, with varying religious beliefs, from varying cultures, in hundreds of scientific specialties have conspired to produce a coherent multibillion year long history of the universe just so they didn't have to go to church?
2
u/Ayasugi-san 3d ago
No, "God created the Earth and all creatures in it" is a story made up by people thousands of years ago trying to figure out how the world worked. Basically all research since has contradicted that story.
-7
u/RobertByers1 4d ago
no. Biology is a different subject from evolutionary biology. One is about life. The other is a claim about the origin of living things. the anser is to teach in freedom all options for origins, its against the law to ban creationism but you could ban evolutionism. hoever teach both sides and let the intelligence of the students weigh the matter. ots the rong side that needs state propping up by censoring one side.
8
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 4d ago
Iām a bit confused as to your answer that seems at first to be all about freedom and teachingā¦and then you undermine that immediately with your statement āitās against the law to ban creationism but you could ban evolutionismā. That seems to be a very inconsistent statement, even if you did follow it up with āteach both sidesā. Why do you think you could ban evolutionism?
-2
u/RobertByers1 3d ago
The people are the boss. They can ban things they dont ant taught. They could ban creationism but not using the constitution as is no done. they cant say god/bible is not a option for origins as it means the state is saying its untrue hich is illegal to interfere in the nation. if people innocently just ban creationism or evolutionism then yes they can. however the people never do this. they accdept truth demands freedom of inquiry and teaching.
5
u/Ayasugi-san 3d ago
they cant say god/bible is not a option for origins as it means the state is saying its untrue hich is illegal to interfere in the nation.
No. The Bible can't be taught as fact in public schools because that's a violation of the establishment clause, as it's implicitly favoring Christianity over other religions. If creationism had any science outside of the Bible, then it could be taught. But it doesn't, as Kitzmiller v. Dover established.
-1
u/RobertByers1 2d ago
no. If one is teaching about origins and bans creationism then its saying its not a option and so saying its untrue hich is illegal if one is invoking some constitution la. hoever hat is taught or banned is unrelated to the constitution. That was just a tool to censor creationism. take them to court.
4
u/Ayasugi-san 2d ago
take them to court.
It happened. Creationism was ruled religion in court.
1
u/RobertByers1 1d ago
Naw. low courts that meant nothing. take them to the highest courts or court and where the public gets a excellent chance to think about it.Its impossible to justify state censorship on acedemic quyestioins anywhere but especially America.
1
2
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 3d ago
I guess Iām still confused. I am trying to understand your mindset here; Iām more wondering why you said that creationism canāt be banned but evolution can be. Iām not seeing where the distinction comes in.
I would agree that actively teaching the Bible as āuntrueā would not be the way to go. However I would say that for something to be actively considered for a classroom, it should meet a minimum burden. It isnāt about keeping viewpoints out, itās about the standards for when something is acceptable to teach as a particular subject.
So for instance; people like Terrance Howard think that 1 x 1 = 2. The answer here isnāt to āteach both sidesā, the math class teaches the best established material for the subject. If Terrance thinks that his view is well supported he should not be censored by the government from investigating it. But he has a responsibility to first do the work and show it has good support before any teacher should bother including it. They arenāt censoring him or being against freedom. Similarly, for both creation AND evolution, I very much do not think that the appropriate method is to teach both sides. If one of the views, regardless of which, meets its burden, it gets the privilege of being taught in a formal setting. If itās creationism, then thatās what I want to be taught. If itās evolution, thatās what I want to be taught. But we shouldnāt teach 1 x 1 = 2 to āteach the controversyā. I think thatās irresponsible and doesnāt even support freedom.
6
u/Agile_Championship87 3d ago
If you teach students incorrect information, they won't have the ability to weigh the matter.
Not teaching something isn't censorship. We don't teach kids that bacon comes from dogs - are we cencoring them, or just not teaching them incorrect information?
Evolution is one of the most evidence-supported areas of science, it's recognised fact. Evolution is clearly a part of biology, to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
-2
u/RobertByers1 3d ago
Creationism is censored. Not because its not true. Other claims. Evolution is not proven and not at all. you dont understand how not. teach both sides and ;et the kids weigh the issue. bacon and dogs too if enough people hold to that opinion. dont censor anything. pm;y the wrong guys do that.
3
u/Agile_Championship87 2d ago
Okay, you want to teach kids that bacon comes from dogs if some people believe it. We're done, there's nothing else to say.
4
3
u/KillerSpreet š§¬ Curious Ape 3d ago
Evolution isnāt the origin of living things. Thatās abiogenesis. Congratulations on showing you know nothing about evolution.
38
u/gitgud_x š§¬ š¦ GREAT APE š¦ š§¬ 4d ago edited 4d ago
More like trying to teach an electrical engineering class without mentioning electrons. You can get pretty far abstracting it to "currents", and you could be tricked into thinking "who needs electrons anyway?" until you need to put it to use like in semiconductors and now suddenly you don't have a clue what's going on.
Likewise for biology and evolution, as Dobzhansky said. (and conversely, as J. J. Thompson said of the electron back in his time!)