Is evolution a controversial science?

[McCulloch]

Both religion and controversial science could be taught in elective College courses where they belong.

He was referring to evolution as controversial science. While there may be quite a number of legitimate controversies within the science of biology regarding evolution, evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

[Neatras]

The only controversy is how much a high school science teacher should be allowed to inject their religious bias into the course material. "Now, I don't believe any of this, but I'm required to teach it to you." "You're not expected to believe any of this..." "If you have any religious reasons, you will not be required to attend class during these lessons." And other choice samples of science teachers being abysmally unscientific in the classroom toward their students.

Controversy rests on the teaching methods behind evolutionary theory, and everyone who attempts to exploit religious protections in order to avoid adequately preparing the students for an introduction to evolutionary biology are conjuring all the controversy that the subject has.

The questions raised about the process of heredity and selective pressures in nature were laid to rest a while ago. The evidence of common ancestry, so well-grounded and far-reaching in all manner of scientific fields, is nothing more than a formality to demonstrate the process by which life developed on the planet; it supplements lessons on evolutionary theory, which is the only scientific model in existence that accurately explains the phenomena we see in nature.

[Kenisaw]

Both religion and controversial science could be taught in elective College courses where they belong.

He was referring to evolution as controversial science. While there may be quite a number of legitimate controversies within the science of biology regarding evolution, evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

No.

One thing I like to point out from time to time is that the theory of evolution has actually been proven twice, by completely different fields of research.

Geology, paleontology, morphology, biology, etc used the geological record and the fossils they contained to put together a tree of life that showed how all living things were related. They also showed how closely animals are related to each other.

Then genetics comes along. We sequence the genomes of most living things, and what does it show? That the tree of life already assembled by previous scientific investigation is incredibly accurate, and that all living things are indeed related all the way back to a common ancestor because all life shares common DNA. We can also tell how closely related things are by comparing their genomes.

It's one of the few scientific theory that has stood up to two independent avenues of investigation and survived. It's a REALLY good scientific theory that explains all the billions of facts of evolution that humans have collected, examined, and tested for the last 150 years.

No controversy exists.

[Divine Insight]

Both religion and controversial science could be taught in elective College courses where they belong.

He was referring to evolution as controversial science. While there may be quite a number of legitimate controversies within the science of biology regarding evolution, evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

No. Evolution is not a controversial science within the sciences. It's only controversial among those who opposed it which is almost exclusively for theological purposes. And theology is most certainly controversial even among theologians.

Also those who speak out against evolution constantly reveal their ignorance of evolution by making statements that aren't even remotely compatible with evolution. One of the most common fallacies is to compare evolution with purely random accident, such as proclaiming that evolution is basically saying that if a tornado hits a junks yard evolution is saying that some percentage of the time this should randomly, by pure chance, produce a brand new Cadillac by pure accident. Of if a tornado hits a lumber yard is should be expected to produced a completed housing project randomly.

Clearly these kinds of analogies only demonstrate an extreme ignorance of evolution.

So these people who contest evolution clearly don't even understand it.

Another popular misunderstanding is that Entropy supposedly denies evolution. This is totally false and actually just the opposite is true. Entropy is actually the reason that evolution can proceed, and this is because the Earth is not a closed system and is being heated by the sun. So this process actually drive evolution rather than preventing it.

So people who rail against evolution are constantly revealing precisely why they don't even understand how it works.

~~~~~

Finally, I feel a very strong need to add the following insight.

Theologians who claim that evolution needs to be "guided" by a supreme being are only restricting the abilities of their deity. A deity who needs to babysit his creation and nudge it along to make it do what he wants would be far inferior to a deity who can simply design a universe that can evolve on its own. So evolution should actually be embraced by theologians who believe in an omnipotent God who has no restrictions. Clearly this is not compatible with the tales of the Biblical God and it is these biblical theologians who rail against evolution.

Note that Buddhist, for example, don't even have a problem with evolution since this is precisely how they would expect their God to do things.

So evolution itself does not even deny a "Creator". Evolution and Buddhism are perfectly compatible. It's only the Abrahamic religions who demand that their God is not capable of designing a universe that can evolve on its own.

So railing against evolution doesn't help their cause anyway. All it does is demand that the God described in their doctrines is incapable of designing a universe that can evolve on its own and instead their God needs to babysit and guide a universe that was not designed very well to begin with.

So they shoot themselves in their own foot when their rail against evolution anyway. If they need evolution to be false in order for their God to be true, then all they are saying is that they need for their God to be extremely limited in what he can do.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I thought it was kind of controversial that the God vs Evolution debate existed before there was a God.

Plato and Aristotle evidently argued that Zeus-Ammon created the universe, and therefore there was no evolution.

So it is controversial, but weirdly so. Why and how would such a silly controversy exist for so long, changing partners, as it were.

Actually - I think I am mis-remembering the argument; Zeus-Ammon created the universe, therefore he engineered evolution into it, the other said, Zeus created the universe, and therefore there was no evolution... or something.

You get the idea.

[KenRU]

Both religion and controversial science could be taught in elective College courses where they belong.

He was referring to evolution as controversial science. While there may be quite a number of legitimate controversies within the science of biology regarding evolution, evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science?

No, the most common objections to evolution are religious in nature. Religion should have no place in a science classroom, and does not get to define what is a controversial science. Does science get to define what is a scripturally controversial religious subject?

Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

None that I am aware of.

-all the best

[JP Cusick]

... evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

The controversy is with the parents who want their own children to grow up with their own family values and morals and the religion of their ancestors.

No controversy at all among biologists ~ how lame can one get?

The controversy is with the people and the families that are hurt and damaged by the schools teaching their children information which serves to undermine the fabric of our society.

[DanieltheDragon]

... evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

The controversy is with the parents who want their own children to grow up with their own family values and morals and the religion of their ancestors.

No controversy at all among biologists ~ how lame can one get?

The controversy is with the people and the families that are hurt and damaged by the schools teaching their children information which serves to undermine the fabric of our society.

How does evolution undermine the fabric of our society?

[JP Cusick]

How does evolution undermine the fabric of our society?

By teaching children / students to have low virtue and low values and no morals then the society gets in return a very low quality graduation class.

Instead of the schools building better citizens - they create lower forms of heathens and scoundrels.

That is how.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

... evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

The controversy is with the parents who want their own children to grow up with their own family values and morals and the religion of their ancestors.

No controversy at all among biologists ~ how lame can one get?

The controversy is with the people and the families that are hurt and damaged by the schools teaching their children information which serves to undermine the fabric of our society.

The controversy is only among Christians who have managed to convince themselves that evolution has been so thoroughly discredited that even scientists no longer accept it as valid. And this is simply delusional. Natural selection and evolution are so thoroughly integrated into the biological sciences that it is impossible to take any course connected with biology without an understanding of natural selection and evolution. Natural selection and evolution are the foundation upon which any study of modern biology is founded.

By declaring that "The controversy is with the parents who want their own children to grow up with their own family values and morals and the religion of their ancestors," what you are really saying is that Christians want to be able to continue on with the rigid indoctrination practices with their own children that they underwent from their parents as a child, without interference. But the educational system is setup to TEACH MODERN CONCEPTS IN KNOWLEDGE, not to perpetuate ignorance. What you are saying is that Christians want the freedom to keep their children ignorant of ideas they don't approve of. But our modern society is rapidly dividing along lines between those with sufficient education to be able to successfully land the high paying technological jobs, and those whose poor education only qualifies them for service jobs and assistance. Efforts to keep your children ignorant is not doing them any favors.