Can anyone give me a legitimate reason why evolution is taught to our children as fact?

Question

What about the evolutionary process has been proven?

tonalc1 - I beg to differ. I seriously question your comment that in all scientific circles that evolution is accepted as fact. There are now and always have been noted scientists who staunchly disagree with the theory - and the number is growing.

Sandy - In the case of bats:
This would prove adaptation, not evolution. As evolutionary theory suggests that information would have to be GAINED in order for the species to improve. In the case of the bat - the information to see has been LOST.
This doesn't make a bat better - on the contrary - it can do what it is suppose to do and do it very well, however it still can't see.

Grant V
In the case of sedimentary rock: There have recently been creatures whose remains have been found in sedimentary rock layers and which have been thought to be extinct that have turned up alive and well today - not evolved into something new and improved.

As well - while sedimentary rock can and is formed by settling of particals over many years, it can also happen very quickly as was demonstrated very graphically when Mt. St. Helen's erupted and the backed up river created a great canyon - carved out of layers of mud which had been layed down by the enormous explosion and subsequent ashfall / dirt etc.

Answer 1

Aside from discussions of evidence, theories, and hypotheses, I will give you one good, solid, reason why every American child should be taught evolutionary theory in school, whether or not you accept it.

Ready?

Because it is the bedrock of the biological and ecological sciences as we now know it. To neglect this foundational stone of the modern life sciences is to basically cripple the United States' (where this whole evolution vs. creationism debate is happening) chances of remaining at the forefront of biotechnology, ecological management, and environmental maintenance in the future. Removing evolution from the basic science curricula of our children's education would be akin to removing algebra from schools. Just as future generations of Americans would be unable to manage the economy and work in the markets without basic algebraic knowledge, future generations of Americans will be unable to compete with other countries in the life sciences fields without knoweldge of evolutionary theory.

I'm an anthropologist and I am a Christian; evolution is simply a basic component of what I do. I am strong believer in community values, and if your community is largely anti-science, I support your choice to teach your children whatever you deem morally acceptable. However, I do want to warn you that, regardless of whether or not you accept evolution, the theory is absolutely crucial to the way life sciences are researched and applied, and that removing evolutionary theory from the curriculum is a big mistake.

As to what has been proven about evolutionary processes, there are several aspects of the theory that have hard, empirical evidence to back them up. Just off the top of my head, I can tell you that natural selection has been observed in at least two instances.
Whereas most Christian creationst views hold that God made all the different forms of life in one moment of creation stretched over six days, scientists have demonstrated that populations of living things do change over time and are not static. Most people think of natural selection - which is Darwin's contribution to evolutionary theory - as a slow process, but it has been observed as a relatively fast process in at least two instances that I can think of off the top of my head: in the case of the Galapagos finches, where droughts and fertile seasons completely changed the morphological profiles of finch populations over a period of years; and in Lake Tanganyika, where toxicity levels have wiped out some fish species, and created new niches that have in turn been exploited by other species. (Or was Lake Taganyika? I forget, I'm not a fish guy. Like I said, I'm an anthropologist. You'll have to forget my slip, but it certainly is out there for you to research. Promise.)

As someone who is quite familiar with the Bible and who is more than adequately familiar with evolutionary theory, I suggest that you take the time to learn some evolutionary theory. Really, sit down and read. There's a lot to learn. But if you want to criticize it, you must take it upon yourself to learn it.

I guess, finally, it's worth mentioning that - no, really - the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists accept evolution. There is vocal minority, but they are truly few in number.

Answer 2

A scientific "theory" isn't the same thing as a personal theory- a scientific theory stands until it can be disproven. So your question might be, what about the evolutionary process has been disproven? Disproven, NOT refined. I notice that people often use hoax fossil specimens to "disprove" evolution- well, that's really not fair, is it, as that can be chalked up to someone's personal vendetta to be famous, having discovered something new.

As for the fossil record in sedimentary rocks, yes, layers can be formed in a short period of time, but we have carbon and other dating methods to back up the simple visual record of what we see- how else can we explain fossils of organisms that don't exist anymore? There's nothing in the modern world that can explain a brontosaurus fossil, is there? Not to mention today we have molecular biology and genetics to further explain things beyond sheer morphology.

Maybe, while we're at it, we should question the history taught in schools (why is it taught from the "white man's" point of view in the US), geology (since, apparently, you consider that invalid, too).

I'm sorry, I don't have a direct answer to your question, because its really one-sided, but judging from your responses you aren't looking for a legitimate reason, but rather a debate. There's more than one side to any story, yes, but at some point you have to decide on what makes the most sense and run with it.

As an addendum, to your response about the bats- evolution doesn't require something to have been "gained" by a species. There's more than one mechanism at work- do your homework. Evolution isn't necessarily improvement, evolution is change- for better, or worse, for whatever reason. Natural selection SELECTS (duh) for the features that are most advantageous to a particular species. Sometimes that means that those features that are no longer advantageous completely disappear, sometimes they remain, because they aren't a detriment to the species success. For example,why do people have eyebrows or pubic hair? Can you think of any good reason why? No, but they don't hinder us, either, so they remain.

Anyways, that's a fallacy- because bats, can in fact see, and some have excellent eyesight- it's just that some species rely more on echolocation.

Answer 3

If I might expand on one of your additional comments.
You say that "there have recently been creatures whose remains have been found in sedimentary rock layers and which have been thought to be extinct that have turned up alive and well today - not evolved into something new and improved."
You're half right.
One of those creatures is the Coelocanth (sp.) it was thought to be extinct, but was then found swimming happily, having survived virtually unchanged for millions of years. Evolution is not a predictive process, I don't know of any scientists who have said or written that animals have evolved into new and improved species. Species adapt over many years, according to selective pressures placed upon them by their environment or other influences. It can't be predicted. The only thing that they were wrong about was that, in finding an animal in fossilised form, they assumed that it was extinct. I'm sure they were delighted to be wrong on this account.
Crocodiles have also been found to be in fossilised form, and are obviously still with us. There are many other examples.
This evidence only shows us that, unlike Man and other apes, some creatures did not change very much over several millions of years.

Answer 4

It's no different than a christian asking an atheist the same. I don't find the question funny or rediculous. A mature person asking these types of questions is just wanting an understanding is to why people come to what they believe. Why is it such a big deal that someone questions someone else's beliefs? It keeps people thinking and keeps our minds fresh. I agree there is some juvenile behavior coming from some who are not truly looking for an answer and just want to get someone's blood boiling but not everyone is like that.

Answer 5

Fossils of various creatures appear readily in sedimentary rocks. These rocks are formed on the ocean floor by a constant rain of biomatter and silt, and are being formed today. Thus lower layers are older, etc. Through different layers, creatures appear similar to each other but gradually change in various ways as one goes higher in the fossil record. This and the observation of the distribution of modern animals suggests that species are descended from other species. It is generally thought that natural selection decides how species evolve, but it does not necessarily preclude idea of creation. Evolution is taught as a process of the emergence of species as they are today. It is merely a process, not a religion. That is why science teaches it, it is an observed process. The philosophy behind it is left to the individual.

Answer 6

Because the theory is backed by a plethora of evidence, not only in the form of many thousands of prehistoric fossils, rigorously crossdated using 1. Carbon dating. 2. Potassium/Argon dating. 3. Photoluminescence and 4.Electron spin resonance, as well as Geomagnetism and rock strata. The DNA evidence is overwhelming in its support. I suppose you would have the Judeo - Christian creation myth taught, but what about the Hindus, The Shintoists, the Jains and all the other belief systems?

Answer 7

Biological evolution is taught in public schools (and many private schools) because it IS a fact. You can watch it happen in a lab, when a colony of bacteria change over time. You can measure the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA (98.5%). Evolutionary theory is the basis of everything we know about living organisms. Without it, we would be discussing plants and animals as having "poofed" into existence, which is the exact opposite of scientific reasoning. Evolution is a factual occurance. Evolutionary theory is the logical and fact-based EXPLANATION of evolution and how it works.

Answer 8

Um, because it is.

Not a single piece of evidence that seriously contradicts any part of it has ever turned up. Within the scientific community, evolution is not at all controversial and is no longer questioned; it is considered to be a fact, as simple and indisputable as gravity.

No scientific theory, including evolution, is ever considered to be proven. The more evidence that accumulates to support a theory, the more our confidence in it grows. Eventually, a point may be reached where the quantity of evidence supporting the theory is so vast, so overwhelming, that further attempts to deny or question it would be futile and unfounded. This is the case with the theory of evolution, as it is the case with the other theories, such as the atomic theory of matter or the theory of plate tectonics,

Answer 9

It's so much easier that way.

Allows to ignore otherwise unpleasant concepts.

Interspecial evolution, contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, has never been proved.

Amazing what one can do when one controls the school system.

As an aside to those who continue to insist that there is no difference between theory and fact... PLEASE STOP.

You're driving people nuts!

As parts of the scientific process, they are dramatically different.

In a nutshell.

A theory is an idea around which one constructs experiments in an effort to prove the theory as fact.

Until such evidence is uncovered NO theory is regarded by any serious person as fact.

Answer 10

Creation theory is only a belief just as that we believed earth is flat. Evolutionary theory is far more scientific based on fossil records and reasoning. There may be flaws in the theory but any one with common sense will accept this till a better theory is EVOLVED.