A
angel12
Guest
Yes, it is. And of course it should be.
- Status
G
giuseppe96
Guest
I actually think it was taught as a theory, how it was meant by to be taught.
I
Inquisitor85
Guest
In the UK state schools teach evolution as a theory, using the correct definition of theory in a scientific context;
1A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
OED
Some other fun theories include
Gravitational theory
Heliocentric theory
Germ theory of disease
So unless you’re a young flat earth creationist, who also believes the sun revolves around the earth and that all diseases are caused by imbalances in the humors then you accept at least some theories.
1A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
OED
Some other fun theories include
Gravitational theory
Heliocentric theory
Germ theory of disease
So unless you’re a young flat earth creationist, who also believes the sun revolves around the earth and that all diseases are caused by imbalances in the humors then you accept at least some theories.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Not a theory. In physics this is called the law of universal gravitation.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
I teach it.
It is a theory just like atomic theory, theory of relativity and germ theory.
It doesn’t necessarily counter Christian teachings especially natural selection. It does challenge students who believe the world is very young. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that is blatantly false.
Not sure what other theory you would suggest in science? The creation is not to be taken literally so it couldn’t possible be used a evidence/data.
This still does not disprove God.
It is a theory just like atomic theory, theory of relativity and germ theory.
It doesn’t necessarily counter Christian teachings especially natural selection. It does challenge students who believe the world is very young. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that is blatantly false.
Not sure what other theory you would suggest in science? The creation is not to be taken literally so it couldn’t possible be used a evidence/data.
This still does not disprove God.
M
Michael96
Guest
Dan
Gravitational theory is an evolving science (of you pardon the pun!). As with biological evolutionary theory, some aspects are considered near-certain, and other aspects are exploring the cutting edge of knowledge.
If anyone assumes that when scientists talk of ‘evolutionary theory’ they are somehow saying the whole thing is really far from certain, then they are not understanding what scientists are saying.
Gravitational theory is an evolving science (of you pardon the pun!). As with biological evolutionary theory, some aspects are considered near-certain, and other aspects are exploring the cutting edge of knowledge.
If anyone assumes that when scientists talk of ‘evolutionary theory’ they are somehow saying the whole thing is really far from certain, then they are not understanding what scientists are saying.
M
mVitus
Guest
@anhphan which country do you live in? Just curious since I’m wondering where they wouldn’t teach evolution.
I’m from the USA. For me, in Catholic grammar school there were some lessons involving evolution. I can’t remember anything about it in 6th grade (public middle school) but it would’ve been natural to come up during biology. Come freshman year of public high school (9th grade) and I know there was a unit on it. At my public community college, a biology credit was required. I could have taken something like botany or other things, but I opted for Bio 101 as it worked well with my schedule. It also had a section on evolution. At the beginning of the semester the professor had a little survey to get an idea of how much knowledge we had going in and who we were. One question asked about our view in regards to evolution. If there was anyone in that class who disagreed with evolution, it didn’t come to my attention. And I’m guessing if anyone did, all he would’ve graded on was if they understood what he taught about evolution, not whether or not they accepted it. (As a side note, it was his last semester teaching and he was a great professor. I kind of wish the class had been a bit more challenging [I found it mostly rehashed freshman biology] because he was definitely knowledgeable and good at sharing that knowledge.)
TL;DR American public schools teach evolution in biology classes. The Catholic schools do too. I’d have to ask my Evangelical cousins if they learned anything about evolution in their Christian schools, but I’d guess not.
I’m from the USA. For me, in Catholic grammar school there were some lessons involving evolution. I can’t remember anything about it in 6th grade (public middle school) but it would’ve been natural to come up during biology. Come freshman year of public high school (9th grade) and I know there was a unit on it. At my public community college, a biology credit was required. I could have taken something like botany or other things, but I opted for Bio 101 as it worked well with my schedule. It also had a section on evolution. At the beginning of the semester the professor had a little survey to get an idea of how much knowledge we had going in and who we were. One question asked about our view in regards to evolution. If there was anyone in that class who disagreed with evolution, it didn’t come to my attention. And I’m guessing if anyone did, all he would’ve graded on was if they understood what he taught about evolution, not whether or not they accepted it. (As a side note, it was his last semester teaching and he was a great professor. I kind of wish the class had been a bit more challenging [I found it mostly rehashed freshman biology] because he was definitely knowledgeable and good at sharing that knowledge.)
TL;DR American public schools teach evolution in biology classes. The Catholic schools do too. I’d have to ask my Evangelical cousins if they learned anything about evolution in their Christian schools, but I’d guess not.
A
anhphan
Guest
I live in Viet Nam
C
Carmel
Guest
Why should they teach evolution if they believe it to be incorrect ? There are excellent scientists who teach Creationism . They can teach how Creationism makes a lot more sense than . The bottom line is that governments and big money are controlling the narrative.
Everybody knows that when people get indoctrinated into evolutionism its only a matter of time till the age-old truths of the Bible are undermined by this lie from hell
A
Aulef
Guest
Same here, OP.
I was taught as if macro evolution is a fact in the 90s and it still is taught today.
And when I talk to people who studied in the 60s/70s they say they were also taught, however there were so,e differences such as a stronger lamsrckism bias.
Edit: I’m talking about Brazil
I was taught as if macro evolution is a fact in the 90s and it still is taught today.
And when I talk to people who studied in the 60s/70s they say they were also taught, however there were so,e differences such as a stronger lamsrckism bias.
Edit: I’m talking about Brazil
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
I’m not sure what the minimum science requirements would be.
Like I said, the science section in my Catholic grammar school included evolution. And Catholics are able to accept it. Most Catholic theologians today also take no dispute with evolution, but would explain how evolution and faith can coexist.While this is opinion-based, an allegorical approach to Genesis is much more fascinating to me. Looking at Genesis 1 through the lens of allegory and how it differed from earlier Mesopotamia creation stories really hits home some of the key attributes of God. I accept evolution, but I still see the Creation story as awesome.
C
Carmel
Guest
As I said the teaching of evolution as a proven fact is not true.Big money and government mandate the ridiculous THEORY
You say in your Catholic grammar school that Catholic theologians take no dispute with evolution. That might be because they are trained theologians and not trained scientists
But we’re intended to read Genesis and the rest of the Bible through the lens of faith and not through the lens of allegory
I applaud the Christian denominations which uphold the integrity of the Bible against the scoffers and mockers
.
M
mVitus
Guest
Theory is science has a much different meaning than in the vernacular. In science, a theory is a well-tested explanation that is the best one we currently have. Much in the way that gravity being a theory doesn’t mean that the idea of gravity is some crazy idea we’re not sure about. But that it is the best explanation we have.
- Theologians are most certainly qualified in theology. You said that evolution leads to disregarding Christian faith. Theologians disagree.
- The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, so far as I know, has not made any statements against evolution overall.
In some cases, allegory is the lens of faith. At the time and in the culture Genesis was written, allegory was the way of writing. If a person says “It’s raining cats and dogs” the literal meaning is that it’s raining hard, not that cats and dogs are falling out the sky. Much in that way does Genesis convey its truths.
Personally, I applaud the Catholic Church for being the Church Christ founded because 8t contains the fullness of truth. Why would I applaud denominations that have broken away from Christ’s Church for disagreeing?
Now that’s not to say I’m saying you can’t hold a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, but when you falsely proclaim the erroneous idea that Catholics cannot hold a less literalistic view of Genesis as the Church has said we can, I’m going to point out that you’re wrong.
C
Carmel
Guest
You’re entitled to your Theory while
Catholics and other Christians who believe the Creation narrative are entitled to express that without fear of ridicule by the ’ scoffers and mockers ’
Catholics and other Christians who believe the Creation narrative are entitled to express that without fear of ridicule by the ’ scoffers and mockers ’
A
angel12
Guest
Scientific investigation is not scoffing or mockery.
You are perfectly entitled to reject any and all science you want to, but that doesn’t justify calling others names.
C
Carmel
Guest
hello Angel ,
A careful reading of many threads on the topic of Darwinism et al will demonstrate that many of its proponents are derisive of people who defend the integrity of the Bible wheras those who speak up for the Creation narrative tend to be a lot more respectful towards those they don’t agree with. I think its called 'Lets agree to disagree
W
Wesrock
Guest
There’s not an evolution class, it’s generally included in natural science classes in middle school (kind of a mix of all the sciences, biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc…) and covered in more detail in high school biology.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Are you accusing people who don’t take a historical literal approach to the creation narrative as deriding the integrity of the Bible?hello Angel ,
angel12:
A careful reading of many threads on the topic of Darwinism et al will demonstrate that many of its proponents are derisive of people who defend the integrity of the Bible wheras those who speak up for the Creation narrative tend to be a lot more respectful towards those they don’t agree with. I think its called 'Lets agree to disagree
C
Carmel
Guest
More like as being inconsistent . They are trying to restructure the plain speaking of scripture
to make it to conform to their favourite fairy tale
to make it to conform to their favourite fairy tale
A
angel12
Guest
Then it’s not called “calling those who disagree with you scoffers and mockers.”
- Status