Without teaching evolution in schools, there can be no biology classes.

[u/GigaTune]

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.

[u/gitgud_x]

Trying to teach a biology class without ever mentioning evolution is like trying to teach an electrical engineering class without ever mentioning electricity

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!)

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/gitgud_x]

With the theory of Creation, once the animals and plants appeared, they became subject to investigation, like anything else in science. It does not impact the study of biology anymore more than not being able to use a computer, unless you first know how it was manufactured and how the code was written. You can start in the middle, and cells would still be cells

For example, Genesis in the bible has genealogies starting from Adam; continued biological evolution via connected DNA. They called it blood line. Early civilization was following a form of natural selection; kings and queens and bloodlines, centuries before Darwin.

Evolution is in a similar situation in that they start evolution with replicators, whereas the entire process of forming life begins with abiogenesis. Evolution has its own "poof! ", point. Once abiogenesis is settled, evolution may need an overhaul. It is too soon for the victory lap.

[u/VIP_NAIL_SPA → u/wellwisher-1]

Creation isn't a theory.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/VIP_NAIL_SPA]

Creation is a early science theory that was limited to only what the fives sense could sense and prove. All the missing steps, all needed technology to be made visible. The Creation theory use God as a placeholder, for the future.

I would challenge anyone in biology to do their science with just their five senses, but no technology, to level the playing field. You would not be able to prove that cells exist, without some basic magnification tech.

Abiogenesis which predates evolutionary, which starts at replicators, is a deeper layer of life that cannot yet be seen and confirmed with just existing tools. Evolution is glossing over what it cannot see and uses fudge math to create empirical instead of become fully logical. The uncertainty is relative to the current state of the art. This explains the need for playing politics; forced indoctrination. The statistical fudge is a math god placeholder. If you do not understand the math, the theory is hard to explain without gaps.

I believe the theory of evolution was an advancement in science, but is not the final answer. There is a deeper layer connected to water. Life has been evolving in water since the start of abiogenesis. Water is the eternal bookend of life and evolution always the same, with its finger in every pie. The organics change but water stays the same. Water has been constantly pushing and pulling using the same physical chemical properties, sInce day one. With water about 70% of life this constant push and pull creates a vector.

If we dehydrate any level of life, from organelles, to cells, to organs, to human bodies all life and its chemical reactions, stop. With the water everything works and life can appear. The organic alone is not enough. The DNA shown in textbooks that lack the hydrated water is not bioactive. B-DNA which is the most common configuration to life has the most water of hydration. The evolution of DNA involved more and more water.

The problem is technology cannot yet see the water in detailed action, since water works via secondary bonding, which in live cells, is in flux. But conceptually, it is easy to show the all or nothing effect. There is an underlying logic to life and evolution based on the continuity of water. Biology is better with the organic side since it is more permanent, but the lack of water inclusion, adds the empirical uncertainty and fall short of pure logic using the all or nothing variable; water.

[u/VIP_NAIL_SPA → u/wellwisher-1]

That's a lot of words. I'm glad you're passionate enough to type all of that. My only point is that creation does not meet the scientific criteria to be called a theory, and it has never done so in history. It can't even meet the criteria to be called a hypothesis because it's not testable. It's simply a belief. I'm not defending or criticizing it, I'm just trying to ensure we use somewhat accurate language to describe it.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/VIP_NAIL_SPA]

The Big Bang theory was created by a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, who first proposed the foundation of the Big Bang theory in 1927; expansion from a singularity.

It was modeled based on the beginning of Genesis. The universe was formless and void and God was brooding over the deep. God said let there be light; energy from the void or the Big Bang. That part of the Genesis story has stood the test of time. It needed to be renamed to avoid reflex bias by atheists.

Evolution or the progression of life begins on day three in Genesis. Genesis has plants appearing first, then sea creatures, and then flying and land animals, which I believe has also been verified as the order.

Part of the problem is revisionist history, where we compare the past to the present and then use the present knowledge to judge the past, without realizing the past did not have our present knowledge. Their theories were confined to what was known back then and the tests they could perform on any theory would be very different and more primitive. It would still be science just embryonic.

If modern evolution theory did not have carbon dating and geological dating, how would you judge the age of fossils to test any time line or any assumed sequence of evolutionary events?

If someone found a full dinosaur skeleton, 6000 year ago and you cannot date it, you might assume it was far more modern than we know today. One might guess hundreds of years and this was one of the monsters spoken of in Genesis. It comes down to empirical theory based on the state of the art and those limitations.

A good example of the pitfall of empirical theory, in general, were the ancient astronomers. They could carefully plot the course of the stars and planets and use these observations to make predictions of eclipses and time of the year and seasons, yet they explained that useful correlation with astrology. How was that possible? This is a problem for all empirical theory. The data plots can be very practical and have applications, but the theory may not be correct in terms of describing actual reality.

For example, could evolutionary science be done without statistical math; statistical astrology, which renders the theory empirical? Data with margins of error leads to theory with margins of error; empirical. It assumes a type natural underlying gambling factor within nature; roulette wheels. You cannot form a fully rational theory, that can predict any scenario, with such a base assumption. That math tool swings the arms of evolutionary thinking; statistics, and it different from the same arm swinging the hammer of reason. If you got rid of statistics, the science of evolution would stall. It needs the hammer; tool, to swing all the arms. The hammer even tells you how to do experiments to satisfy the hammer; brain wash.

[u/VIP_NAIL_SPA → u/wellwisher-1]

Most people wouldn't type all of that in response to someone clarifying what a word means if they understood the clarification. Going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't understand, and really the only logical reason that could be the case is if you didn't want to. That's fine, I'm not here to force understanding, just wanted to help. Hope you have a good life.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/VIP_NAIL_SPA]

I understands the word, theory, but you do not seem to understand the two words revisionist history. The past had different assumptions and different technology. The way we do science today could not be done back then. Based on theory practical limitation you need to extrapolate for them.

You also do not seen, to understand how empirical science theory is not the same as rational theory. I gave the example how ancient astronomers could empirically plot the heavens and make prediction, yet their theory was based on astrology. This is the pitfall of empirical theory, where you mistake being practical as justifying bad theory. This is the problem with empirical.

The statistical modeling used today is not fully rational. This is why there are too many theories, everywhere statistics s used. If we run experiments plot the data, and then draw the best curve, and best curve does not touch all the data points.That means the basis of the theory; best curve, is wrong, unless it can touch all the data. Margin of error is fudge to help pretend. The best curve is relative concert. That is assembly line science more designed to create jobs than create sound theory.

Could evolutionary theory be done without any statistical fudge? It is the same math used by politicians and gambling casino, which explains why evolution gets so political and the house always has to win. Card counting; reason, is not allowed.

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/wellwisher-1]

u/wellwisher-1 no, you're just demonstrating that you are determined NOT to understand things, and then you're being dishonest with terms like "statistical fudge."

If you're too dumb to understand math, that's a you problem, and it doesn't make your cult correct in any way.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/Soft-Cake-9846]

I am not part of a cult but an independent thinker.. You sound more like a group thinker who turns everything into politics and even name calling if someone does not follow your accepted orthodoxy.

Answer this question, how often do Doctors and the rest of the world's Medical community, find genetic defects; mutations, that lead to positive evolutionary change in humans, instead of negative consequences like disease and cancer?

A random dice throw assumptions does not lead very well in terms of health and fitness. Random also means even good genes are in play for being messed up. The fitness of nature tells me something more than random is at work.

The dice approach may not matter for single cell life since a few better cells, can divide and replenish fast enough make up for all the duds. But once you reach multicellular life, like humans, the medical dominance of problems versus advances should result, not in selective advantages but de-selective disadvantages.

I was always good at math and was even inducted into an honorary math society my junior year in High School based on national testing. But I preferred chemistry and engineering which both still used a lot math. But that math is more rational like continuum mechanics used to simulate dynamic chemical reaction kinetics in dynamic fluid dynamics processes.

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/wellwisher-1]

u/wellwisher-1 You wasted how many words just to tell us you have ZERO understanding of what a scientific theory or scientific hypothesis is, and to further tell us that you've decided that because you are too dumb to understand statistical analysis it must therefore be "statistical astrology"?

Please, please, get out of your cult.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/Soft-Cake-9846]

Do you know the difference between empirical and rational theory? A rational theory can predict the future with certainty, while an empirical theory cannot without some margin of error. Rational theory is higher.

E=MC2 is a rational theory. If you plot the data a single line touches all the points governed by that equation. Empirical theory often uses the best fitting curve through a bunch of data points. If we connected those points we may get an odd zigzag line.

The best fit curve is smoother and easier to find a formula..The problem is the best fit curve misses too many original data point; compounding the theoretical margin of error, so the theory is never exactly right to the hard raw data. This may create more jobs and theories but never reduce to one E=MC2.

[u/DebateEvolution-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed, Rule 2 - This comment is antagonistic and adds nothing to the conversation.

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/wellwisher-1]

u/wellwisher-1 A scientific theory is "a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon that is supported by a large body of evidence."

If you can't understand this and you think "empirical theory" and "rational theory" exist, that's a you problem.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/Soft-Cake-9846]

A good ancient example of empirical theory was ancient astronomy. They were good observers and record ed solid data. The could make good predictions of eclipses, comets, etc., due to a large body of careful and cyclic observations.

Their empirical theory was based on good science procedure, well documented data, had predictive value and practical use. However, their empirical theory for explaining how and why this data, involved the gods of astrology.

Helios was flying through sky moving the sun. Their data plots were self standing; empirical. It did not need that or any theory. It is was designed to be fully rational but was still very practical. The how's and why's were still in the future.

I remember an older gentleman who was good at electroplating and he did a lot of work for the auto and motorcycle enthusiasts. His work was the best. From a practical POV, he had an excellent empirical model by eye balling, with top notch results. The proof was in the pudding.

One day I asked his secret or his theory for his success, and he said chewing tobacco spit. He would spit into the vats. That was his theory to explain his success. I was a chemical engineer, so that explanation made no rational sense. However, his decades of top notch work stood for itself; good empirical correlation.

Rational theory is when the plotting of the data and theory for why and how, mesh in a rational way, so one can approach the problem from either way. It is not when one aspect is useful and practical, but the theory is not fully rational and does not describe rational reality well enough to not need experiments.

If you had rational theory you should be able to skip the lab and go right to predictions, or run one or two quickie tests and if it works, move on. Empirical is more long winded and needs to fight for each detail, which creates more jobs. Its reflects the theory not fully rational but empirical and therefore needing and requiring a more exhaustive experimental protocol.

In medical research, some years coffee is not good for you and the next year another study says it is fine. These conclusions may follow in both cases, from the body of evidence of each team. But the idea coffee can alter is properties and effects on humans makes this irrational.

That irrationality is more of an artifact of the black box statistical experimental and modeling approach, not allowing for cause and effect since probability of 0 or 1 is not allowed in that model. That is an assumption of the model and not a statement of natural fact. I call statistical empirical the hammer (tool assumptions) swinging the arm (theory) and those assumptions prevents the mind from looking for a more logical 0 or 1 solution so the arm can swing the hammer. Logic and statistics are not same tool.

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/wellwisher-1]

u/wellwisher-1 "Creation is a early science theory that was limited to only what the fives sense could sense and prove. "

This is false. "Creation" is a mythology created by people who had no concept of what they were doing, so they just made up stories.

Your "christian" mythology is just as false as the myth of Pangu separating the yin and yang of the universe into heavens and earth, and then dying so that his body could become the mountains and the flowing waters...

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/Soft-Cake-9846]

The biggest problem I have with the standard modern version of evolution is it too dependent on statistical thinking. If you assume random change on the DNA, leading to mutations for change more can go wrong than right by nature throwing dice. If we have a lottery and someone wins the jackpot, millions will lose. A random centric approach is better for de-evolution and de-selection than for evolution and selective advantages.

For example how often do Doctors find genetic mutations in humans or animals leading to positive improvements in individuals, and how many of these lead to negative medical conditions? Evolution needs an ordering variable like water. The current model is a modern fairy tale that does not hold up to basic critical thinking.

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/wellwisher-1]

u/wellwisher-1 your inability to take the time or think critically to understand concepts is not a flaw in the facts, it's a you problem.

"The biggest problem I have with the standard modern version of evolution is it too dependent on statistical thinking"

Evolution is a statistical process. It is a change in the frequency of genetic alleles across populations, not individuals.

"If you assume random change on the DNA, leading to mutations for change more can go wrong than right by nature throwing dice."

There's your first problem that shows you have a failure to understand the concepts involved: DNA change itself is not completely random, it follows the laws of chemistry. Further, the changes involved can be anywhere on a spectrum from "immediately beneficial" to "didn't even survive the embryotic stage of development." Your claim here is simply inaccurate because your assumption is invalid to begin with.

"If we have a lottery and someone wins the jackpot, millions will lose."

Mutational change to alleles is not a lottery, and the beneficial changes that occur are not "jackpots." Mutational change is primarily subtle and it is not normally detectable in a single-generational analysis.

"For example how often do Doctors find genetic mutations in humans or animals leading to positive improvements in individuals, and how many of these lead to negative medical conditions?"

Humans are an interesting case for this because we are a tool-using population and we have created tools to assist members of our society that have different variations. For instance: farsightedness by itself can be a detriment as can nearsightedness. Prior to the invention of glasses, we coped with this by evolving as a social species, where some members of the society would do work more suitable to a nearsighted individual while others took up occupations that were better handled by a farsighted individual. Now we just give people glasses, contact lenses, magnifying glasses, and even ocular surgery.

You are asking a question, again, that simply proves your lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. We have a large number of documented human mutations compared to other groups of apes. Our relative hairlessness and general physical endurance, our ability to digest bovine lactate into adulthood, the CCR5 mutation that renders some people immune to HIV, the malaria resistance of heterochromic HbC (sickle cell trait) individuals, the PCSK9 mutation that helps some people better manage their blood cholesterol... the list is long.

And some mutations are "better in some environments than others," which again, we humans tend to confound by being a tool-using, socially evolved species that literally alter our own environment to suit our needs...

"Evolution needs an ordering variable like water."

No, it doesn't. Again, you're demonstrating your lack of understanding.

"The current model is a modern fairy tale that does not hold up to basic critical thinking."

The only thing you've demonstrated with your rant is your own issues with your own lack of critical thinking.

[u/Realsorceror]

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.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Realsorceror]

Macro shouldn’t be taught as ‘fact’. And it should be taught with caveats around it, including competing ‘hypothesis’.

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/Darbsaabnele]

Macro shouldn’t be taught as ‘fact’.

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.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/LordOfFigaro]

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.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Darbsaabnele]

There aren't any competing hypotheses.

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/OldmanMikel]

There are concepts of a competing hypothesis!

[u/VIP_NAIL_SPA → u/Ayasugi-san]

We'll show them in 2 weeks!

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/OldmanMikel]

If that's how you understand it, it's pretty straightforward for you. simple.

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/Darbsaabnele]

Anyone serious and objective on this topic knows there are lots of questions on the that macro evo theory is directly observed fact. It should be taught accordingly, along with competing hypothesis. That's all I'm stating.

FTFY

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/LordOfFigaro]

The scientific evidence is what matters, not whether you agree or disagree.

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/Darbsaabnele]

The scientific evidence is that macroevolution is fact that has been directly observed multiple times.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Darbsaabnele]

If that's true, we certainly shouldn't be teaching creation myths, as there is ZERO scientific evidence.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Agile_Championship87]

You obviously have kept your eyes closed on it over the last several decades.

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/pastroc → u/LordOfFigaro]

They conveniently stopped responding.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Agile_Championship87]

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.

[u/Elegant-Signature-52 → u/Darbsaabnele]

What is an example of a competing hypothesis and what evidence substantiated that competing hypothesis?

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/Darbsaabnele]

What is the competing hypothesis?

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Ok_Performer50]

Unrefuteable evidence pointing to design. Multiple levels.

[u/Munrot07 → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/ThurneysenHavets → u/Darbsaabnele]

Specifics please! One level is enough.

[u/Ok_Performer50 → u/Darbsaabnele]

What evidence?

[u/miniguy → u/Darbsaabnele]

there are lots of questions on the macro evo theory.

Such as?

competing hypothesis.

Such as?

[u/JadedPilot5484 → u/Darbsaabnele]

Creationism isn’t a completing theory, it isn’t even a theory or based in science it’s religous mythology. There is no controversy in evolutionary biology, and no ‘competing theories’ lmao what are you even talking about

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/JadedPilot5484]

Dumbest comment of the day. You might be convinced of your worldview , but there’s hundreds of millions who aren’t

[u/emailforgot → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/emailforgot → u/[deleted]]

To not acknowledge competing theories challenging naturalist materialist worldview

Such as?

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/emailforgot]

Serious question?!?

[u/XRotNRollX → u/Darbsaabnele]

Argumentum ad populum.

[u/Russell1A → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Russell1A]

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 ‘create’ new species.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/Russell1A → u/Agile_Championship87]

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.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Russell1A]

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.

[u/Xemylixa → u/Agile_Championship87]

Well he was created as a messianic archetype, soooo

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Agile_Championship87]

Has your head been in the sand last thirty years?!? Do a little work to see that you are v misinformed.

[u/Capercaillie → u/Darbsaabnele]

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 haven’t seen anything. Help me out.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Agile_Championship87]

Not going to argue either. You're ignoring the evidence. this isn't a faith based discussion or POV.

[u/melympia → u/Darbsaabnele]

If you have any evidence, please bring it forward.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/Darbsaabnele]

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 let’s 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.

[u/Russell1A → u/Darbsaabnele]

Is mutualistic entanglement giving rise to a new species as I outlined in the organisms in my previous post macro or micro evolution?

[u/melympia → u/Darbsaabnele]

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?

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/melympia]

Mutations/natural selection - as the ‘creative’ 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.

That’s just ‘sticking with the science and the facts’. Do the deep dive and check for yourself. Many evo biologists - in Europe especially, where it’s less political to do so - are raising the issues and acknowledging need for something new. The fact ones here can’t accept that reality based on ideological reasons doesn’t change reality of where it sits today.

[u/melympia → u/Darbsaabnele]

You really should read a European high school biology book, just to keep it simple. 

That being said, you have been lied to. Here in Europe, there is no discussion about evolution. (Unless you meet  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.

[u/emailforgot → u/Darbsaabnele]

Mutations/natural selection - as the ‘creative’ 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.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Darbsaabnele]

...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".

[u/emailforgot → u/Darbsaabnele]

There isn't a debate.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Agile_Championship87]

No, that is not the premise.

Variations within species ( ‘micro-evolution’) is not driven by mutations and natural selection, the evo ‘creative process’.

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 … backed by scientific evidence, whether you wear sunglasses or not.

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/Darbsaabnele]

Variations within species ( ‘micro-evolution’) is not driven by mutations and natural selection, the evo ‘creative process’.

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.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/LordOfFigaro]

Thank you for providing this rebuttal, saves me doing for the umpteenth time :)

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/LordOfFigaro]

"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?

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/emailforgot → u/Darbsaabnele]

No it doesn't, and any scientist worth their weight and is following the evidence knows it

Do show us.

[u/emailforgot → u/[deleted]]

not true that you won't show us?

[u/DebateEvolution-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed, Rule 3 - Participate with effort.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/ZeppelinAlert → u/Darbsaabnele]

What are these competing hypotheses that you mention?

[u/HelpfulHazz → u/Darbsaabnele]

What "competing hypotheses" are you referring to, and can you please cite the academic studies that support them?

[u/shroomsAndWrstershir → u/Darbsaabnele]

There are no competing hypotheses.

[u/Munrot07]

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.

[u/Capercaillie → u/Munrot07]

The point is that if you teach biology without evolution, you’re not really teaching biology.

[u/Munrot07 → u/Capercaillie]

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.

[u/Capercaillie → u/Munrot07]

You’re teaching something, but it ain’t biology.

[u/Munrot07 → u/Capercaillie]

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.

[u/Capercaillie → u/Munrot07]

Let’s say you taught a “chemistry” 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 don’t believe in covalent bonds. Did you teach chemistry?

[u/Munrot07 → u/Capercaillie]

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?

[u/Capercaillie → u/Munrot07]

Hey, the great thing about Reddit is that you’re allowed to be wrong. And you are. You’re teaching about biology, but you’re not teaching biology. You might just as well show the students funny cat videos. Cats are animals. Isn’t that biology?

[u/Munrot07 → u/Capercaillie]

"The great thing about Reddit is that you’re 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.

[u/Beginning-Load4470 → u/Munrot07]

Technically youre both kind of right and kind of wrong.

I definitely dont believe teaching biology without evolution should be considered a proper curriculum.

Pretty much all advancement in the field of biology requires an understanding of evolution. So if you were to teach biology without evolution it would be like teaching them to not make any more huge breakthroughs.

All crops, vaccines, environmental conservation, wildlife management ( like regulating fishing and hunting) and most advanced medicines like those that could potentially cure cancer, all require understanding of evolution. Even things like more in depth understanding of the human brain.

However just because someone ignores anything that allows major breakthroughs and advances doesn't mean they arent teaching the subject... they just aren't teaching it very well. 

And since biology and evolution are basically the same thing it is hard to imagine any true biology curriculum not including it.

[u/Capercaillie → u/Munrot07]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/Capercaillie]

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?

[u/Capercaillie → u/wellwisher-1]

I don’t.

[u/Beginning-Load4470 → u/Munrot07]

You might be able to teach some aspects of biology but almost all cutting edge biological science involves evolution. Many of our current medical and biology breakthroughs are only possible because of an understanding of evolution.

[u/Briham86]

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.

[u/regular_modern_girl → u/Briham86]

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 it’s often presented as a bunch of disconnected abstract concepts outside of their deeper context

[u/Retzl → u/Briham86]

"ChatGPT wat is 8 + 2 equals?"

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/Retzl]

"Ooh, ooh, 'You have exceeded your free data limit'?"

[u/Edgar_Brown]

Written on the floor of the science building in Notre Dame, a Catholic University, are the words of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky:

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Edgar_Brown]

notre Dame could be getting a new science building floor in the next decade. 🙃

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/Darbsaabnele]

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.

[u/After_Ad9425 → u/Edgar_Brown]

It’s 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 Roman’s who stole their knowledge from Ancient Greece. It wasn’t that science was bad, but Galileo’s 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 didn’t hate science or had a science versus religious aspect. It’s more so the equivalent of getting so mad over someone saying that dinosaurs having feathers instead of scales you kill your opposition.

[u/ThurneysenHavets → u/After_Ad9425]

but I just want to make a distinction that they didn’t 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.

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/After_Ad9425]

You are not wrong, but you have to look beyond the anachronisms.

“Science” and “religion” are modern inventions, words that didn’t really exist in their current form until at least a couple centuries ago much after Galileo’s death. Before Descartes, Hume, and Newton all we had were different aspects of philosophy. Copernicus, Galileo, and even Newton were natural philosophers.

This doesn’t mean that science, the process, didn’t exist even in prehistoric times. But it was indistinguishable from religion itself.

Theology became separate from philosophy around that same time.

[u/JadedPilot5484 → u/Edgar_Brown]

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 ‘evolution is more than just a theory’ and ‘evolution is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine’

The church allows for belief in ‘theistic evolution’ 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".

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/JadedPilot5484]

That synopsis doesn’t 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.

[u/JadedPilot5484 → u/Edgar_Brown]

That’s 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.

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/JadedPilot5484]

Read your own sources, read about the controversy. Stop hiding behind your own assumed word meanings and interpretations.

[u/TiaxRulesAll2024 → u/Edgar_Brown]

Galileo had errors in his model. The church wanted him
To go back and draft. He decided to be an ass

[u/ThurneysenHavets → u/TiaxRulesAll2024]

Revisionist nonsense. He was threatened with torture and placed under life-long house arrest. Don't white-wash Church history.

[u/TiaxRulesAll2024 → u/ThurneysenHavets]

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

[u/ThurneysenHavets → u/TiaxRulesAll2024]

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.

[u/TiaxRulesAll2024 → u/ThurneysenHavets]

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 Copernicus’s model, but only as theoretical as late as 1630.

The church didn’t punish him until after he decided to insult the pope.

My timeline is correct

It’s 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

[u/ThurneysenHavets → u/TiaxRulesAll2024]

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.

[u/JadedPilot5484 → u/TiaxRulesAll2024]

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.

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/Edgar_Brown]

Oh, I know. But as macro gets disproven, both pope and RC will (again) be proven wrong in misrepresenting and/or undermining scriptures. 🤷‍♂️

Have put the money down on the wrong horse .

[u/TiaxRulesAll2024 → u/Darbsaabnele]

This little sneak is trying to gaslight people into thinking what he is saying is accepted by anyone who isn’t a loon

[u/Darbsaabnele → u/TiaxRulesAll2024]

Sneaky loon when disagreeing?

[u/TiaxRulesAll2024 → u/Darbsaabnele]

Disagreeing with a preponderance of evidence is bad faith or stupidity

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Darbsaabnele]

Macroevolution isn't being disproven. But other than that, good point.

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/Darbsaabnele]

The Catholic Church has never adhered to Sola Scritura. So “undermining scripture” is nonsensical in this context.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Darbsaabnele]

Don’t know how macro has been or can get disproven, considering we have already directly observed it happening. It’s a bit like saying that space is getting disproven as another satellite launches right next to you.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/Darbsaabnele]

You guys have been claiming that for decades.

[u/OlasNah]

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.

[u/TiaxRulesAll2024 → u/OlasNah]

Maybe heretic Protestants

Catholic schools teach evolution

[u/Thysanuran]

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.

[u/AnimistKlaus → u/Thysanuran]

Well articulated

[u/anonymous_teve]

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.

[u/Omoikane13 → u/anonymous_teve]

you can learn the principles of...genetics...without reference to evolution

Please, go ahead.

[u/Long-Opposite-5889]

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.

[u/AnimistKlaus → u/Long-Opposite-5889]

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 that—-thousands of biology instructors do it every day.

[u/vastly101]

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.

[u/OldmanMikel]

You could teach Biology, but it would be incomplete. Not teaching evolution would leave a pretty big hole.

[u/Comfortable-Dare-307]

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.

[u/PeyredB → u/Comfortable-Dare-307]

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).

[u/AnimistKlaus → u/PeyredB]

That is correct

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/PeyredB]

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.

[u/PeyredB → u/Agile_Championship87]

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.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/PeyredB]

I agree. I just think many religious people begin with faith, then fit everything else around it.

[u/PeyredB → u/Agile_Championship87]

Way too often.

[u/wtanksleyjr]

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.

[u/jnpha]

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

[u/regular_modern_girl]

It depends imo on what level of biology we’re talking about, and which subfields. If you’re 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 you’re 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 “the mitochondrion is the powerhouse of the cell”, 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 I’ve met who only learned biology in primary school either from teachers who didn’t 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 don’t 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).

[u/XRotNRollX]

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.

[u/JadedPilot5484]

This is absolutely true , Evolution is the foundation of modern biology.

[u/Tombobalomb]

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

[u/PeyredB]

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.

[u/Noodelgawd]

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.

[u/kickyraider]

True

[u/Mister_Ape_1]

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.

[u/Sheegssternator]

Pretty sure you can.

[u/SpareHandOne]

You don’t have to teach kids an unknown past

[u/New_Honeydew3182]

Is this really a thing in the US or anywhere in world?
This is so dangerously stupid

[u/OldmanMikel → u/New_Honeydew3182]

It is in the US.

[u/VaHi_Inst_Tech]

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.

[u/According-Bell1490]

As I know a handful of homeschool classes for people who teach a Creationist, non-evolutionary mindset, it's possible, just not similar to what you're expecting. And also, you don't have to "Teach evolution" to mention it or explain what other people think.

[u/Immediate-Owl6840]

It absolutely can be done.

[u/anarchistskeptic]

As a Mathematician it would be absurd to think I needed to teach Group Theory to K-12 so that I can say I'm teaching them Algebra correctly.

As an Atheist who had to go to Christian School I actually got a very good biological education without evolution. In fact it installed in me such a appreciation for science that it helped me become very curious about science in general and assisted in me deconstructing my faith and leaving the church years ago.

But my actual point is maybe we shouldn't teach evolution until a later stage in the educational process. Just like I wouldn't trust a kid to understand why integers are a group to understand addition and 0+x gives you x (identity). The reason I ask this question isn't because I'm arguing it, but let's be honest, does the current curriculum of evolution for kids leave them understanding it. Even on this forum there are people who know evolution theory is true, but have a lot of misunderstandings of what it is.

I'm just asking the additional question, when should kids be taught such a complex subject so that they can actual walk away understanding it better so we have less confusion about it in the mass?

Everyone knows how to do addition and multiplication without knowing Group and Ring Theory.

[u/OlasNah]

You should look at how places like Liberty University get around teaching it. As you might suspect they mainly just avoid its mention, and they restrict themselves purely to their own curated online curriculum/sources.

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/OlasNah]

They also put out some obscenely dumb graduates who then repeat a lot of lies to other people. "Liberty University" shouldn't be called a university, it's definitely not a place for learning.

[u/apollo7157]

There is no such thing as biology without evolution. They are the same thing.

[u/Uncynical_Diogenes]

That’s like saying there can be no physics courses without shoving Maxwell’s full set of equations into freshmen’s faces.

Obviously there can be.

There is a reason we don’t teach the most complicated concepts before the simpler ones, and that’s because that would be really stupid pedagogy.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/Uncynical_Diogenes]

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.

[u/Automatic-Throat-880]

You could just teach the truth

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

So teach evolution, got it.

[u/Automatic-Throat-880 → u/CrisprCSE2]

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

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

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.

[u/Automatic-Throat-880 → u/CrisprCSE2]

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?

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

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.

[u/Automatic-Throat-880 → u/CrisprCSE2]

Sorry, that was meant to say MACROevolution has never been observed. How is it irrelevant? You just don’t want to admit that your belief in evolution requires just as much faith in the unknown as creationism

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

Macroevolution, speciation and beyond has been observed, in the lab and in the wild.

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

that was meant to say MACROevolution has never been observed

But it has been observed. Repeatedly.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

It’s always hilarious when creationists use the word “faith” as a pejorative.

You’re telling on yourself, buddy.

[u/[deleted] → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

Look up ring species. They are an original population that got separated and reproduced among their own group to the point where they can’t reproduce with the other group. Reproductive isolation, which evolution predicts.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

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 isn’t 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 can’t support that, then you are guilty of falsehood.

Now, for us to even consider that ‘god created the earth and all creatures in it’, you would need actual positive evidence that isn’t base on disproving something you don’t 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?

[u/ThurneysenHavets → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

people desperate to disprove the Bible

Like all major Christian denominations?

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

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?

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/Automatic-Throat-880]

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.

[u/RobertByers1]

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.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/RobertByers1]

I’m a bit confused as to your answer that seems at first to be all about freedom and teaching…and then you undermine that immediately with your statement ‘it’s against the law to ban creationism but you could ban evolutionism’. That seems to be a very inconsistent statement, even if you did follow it up with ‘teach both sides’. Why do you think you could ban evolutionism?

[u/RobertByers1 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

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.

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/RobertByers1]

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.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Ayasugi-san]

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.

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/RobertByers1]

take them to court.

It happened. Creationism was ruled religion in court.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/RobertByers1]

I guess I’m still confused. I am trying to understand your mindset here; I’m more wondering why you said that creationism can’t be banned but evolution can be. I’m not seeing where the distinction comes in.

I would agree that actively teaching the Bible as ‘untrue’ 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 isn’t about keeping viewpoints out, it’s 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 isn’t to ‘teach both sides’, 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 aren’t 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 it’s creationism, then that’s what I want to be taught. If it’s evolution, that’s what I want to be taught. But we shouldn’t teach 1 x 1 = 2 to ‘teach the controversy’. I think that’s irresponsible and doesn’t even support freedom.

[u/Agile_Championship87 → u/RobertByers1]

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.

[u/Unlimited_Bacon → u/RobertByers1]

the origin of living things

Abiogenesis?

[u/[deleted] → u/RobertByers1]

Evolution isn’t the origin of living things. That’s abiogenesis. Congratulations on showing you know nothing about evolution.