Science Richard Dawkins calls for evolution to be taught to children from age five.

[tom_mai78101]

Children in the UK should be taught the science of evolution by natural selection from the age of five, says Prof Richard Dawkins.

The Oxford biologist argues that evolution is so important to our understanding of the world that it should form part of the primary school curriculum. He is dismissive of the notion that evolution is a difficult concept for young children to grasp.

"Evolution is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age," he writes in the Times.

"If we are going to be prescriptive about teaching history, comparative religion, maths and English – and I wouldn't wish to sweep those things away – I don't see why we shouldn't be prescriptive about teaching the explanation for our existence."

Richard Dawkins calls for evolution to be taught to children from age five

Dawkins says evolution – 'the explanation for our existence' – should be a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bartuc08]

I think Poke'mon does a good job of teaching our children about evolution.

In all srsns though, I'm surprised this is still debated, evolution should be taught in school, it's not a religion or a belief it's science...

 

[camelCase]

+1 on Bartuc's post.

 

[UndeadDragon]

+2 to Bartuc.

I remember being taught religion at 5 (I am not religious), so I don't see any problem being taught Evolution.

 

[FireCat]

Dawkins also considers the potential harm in teaching fantasy, even to very young children

What harm?
Prevention a childs imagination is cruel. Seriously, let the little kids enjoy fantasy as long as they can
it won't last long anyway.

 

[xPass]

+1 on Bartuc's post too.

 

[ElderKingpin]

i thought evolution was already taught inside public schools, or is that only in america

 

[Varine]

i thought evolution was already taught inside public schools, or is that only in america

Not from age five (when you start school). Kids that young really won't understand it anyway, and in doing so you would cause a lot of issues with parents not liking it.

 

[YourFace]

Kids will know where babies come from.

 

[Icyculyr]

"Evolution is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age," he writes in the Times.

There's nothing in the world that even slightly shows signs of evolution. We develop and grow within specific parameters, if we deviate from those parameters (our genetic code) the results aren't improvement but degradation and deformation. They ultimately have no proof whatsoever for evolution.

Regardless of whether you are an agnostic, atheist, or belong to any other religion, there is no reason whatsoever to support or believe in evolution.
And for the record, the word religion can be as broad as a "common belief" thus applies to agnosticism and atheism. It doesn't necessarily imply belief in a deity.

I also thoroughly believe that it shouldn't be taught in schools whatsoever (or religion for that matter unless elective). I believe you should teach your own children what you believe, not have schools indoctrinate children and specifically young children (whom believe almost anything) incapable of debating and researching this belief.

Micro-evolution is real and there is plenty of proof to support it but there is none whatsoever for macro-evolution which is what Darwin proposed. Evolutionists often lump the two together and use the former as evidence of the whole when in fact there is absolutely no proof of even one of any type of creature being reproduced with even one bit of new genetic information. Even "if" you believe evolution happens over millions or billions of years, there would still be very small amounts of new genetic information recordable today.

Here's a short quote from the second link:

Micro-evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a shuffling of current genetic information to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For example, a study of Cane toads in Australia revealed that over a span of 70 years, the toads with longer legs tended to survive because they could run and leap farther and faster, thereby avoiding becoming some animal's lunch. Consequently, the shorter legged toads died out. All of the toads had it within their genetic structure to develop longer legs, so whenever the occasional toad would be born with a dominant “longer leg” gene, he would have an advantage over his brother toads, tend to survive and then pass that dominant gene onto his tadpoles and before you know it, the whole Cane toad population “micro-evolved” longer legs.

And here's a short quote from the first link:

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Reference: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Very short:http://toptenproofs.com/article_evolution.php

Don't reply with baseless information. If you actually want to dispute me read the entirety of the first article that I linked (and preferably the second also). And make sure you've thoroughly read any articles you're going to reply with in defense of evolution, because I will and I'll do my best to pick them apart. Also don't reply claiming proof of (maco) evolution citing evidence of micro-evolution.

 

[sqrage]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water/

BANG. Thank you come again Iculyr.

 

[tommerbob]

Richard Dawkins holds very little respect for my part. His bigotry is appalling. Anything he says I usually take with a grain of salt.

 

[D.V.D]

There's nothing in the world that even slightly shows signs of evolution. We develop and grow within specific parameters, if we deviate from those parameters (our genetic code) the results aren't improvement but degradation and deformation. They ultimately have no proof whatsoever for evolution.

Regardless of whether you are an agnostic, atheist, or belong to any other religion, there is no reason whatsoever to support or believe in evolution.
And for the record, the word religion can be as broad as a "common belief" thus applies to agnosticism and atheism. It doesn't necessarily imply belief in a deity.

I also thoroughly believe that it shouldn't be taught in schools whatsoever (or religion for that matter unless elective). I believe you should teach your own children what you believe, not have schools indoctrinate children and specifically young children (whom believe almost anything) incapable of debating and researching this belief.

Micro-evolution is real and there is plenty of proof to support it but there is none whatsoever for macro-evolution which is what Darwin proposed. Evolutionists often lump the two together and use the former as evidence of the whole when in fact there is absolutely no proof of even one of any type of creature being reproduced with even one bit of new genetic information. Even "if" you believe evolution happens over millions or billions of years, there would still be very small amounts of new genetic information recordable today.

Here's a short quote from the second link:



And here's a short quote from the first link:



Reference: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Very short:http://toptenproofs.com/article_evolution.php

Don't reply with baseless information. If you actually want to dispute me read the entirety of the first article that I linked (and preferably the second also). And make sure you've thoroughly read any articles you're going to reply with in defense of evolution, because I will and I'll do my best to pick them apart. Also don't reply claiming proof of (maco) evolution citing evidence of micro-evolution.

Obviously it hasn't been observed or anything to show some proof of that kind. It takes so long, much longer than the amount of time humans as a species have existed. But if micro evolution exists as you say, why can't lots of micro evolution build up to macro evolution? What exactly is there to stop it?

 

[Wiseman_2]

There's nothing in the world that even slightly shows signs of evolution.

Of course there isn't. We'll just completely ignore the fossil record, then.

Evolve or die.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water/

BANG. Thank you come again Iculyr.

The fact that it exists at all in those nearby populations leads the researchers to believe the Hudson Bay tomcod had the mutation at least to a low degree before the PCB onslaught. In a classic case of natural selection, the fish with the mutated genes survived.

Along with micro evolution, natural selection is also obvious, and gene mutation is also obvious. Problem is there's no evidence for fish -> human. Intermediate fossils missing, etc. I'd class the chem resistance mutation under micro evolution (same cat. as green eyes/blond hair), since the species are still able to mate normally. The parts which are unproven are things where barriers develop between species. Different numbers of chromosomes, etc, preventing mating, and such, with other species. (And hybrids of those don't produce offspring.)

My problem is that a lot of spiritual things are also proven and obvious. I'm surprised physical spiritual healing is not taught in school. It's not that hard, there's just principles to it.. If you're trying to teach things which explain what we are and how we came to be, definitely need both sides of the coin. I'm sick of religion being taught in highschool as a bunch of stories, I'm sure most of us can agree to that. They should teach kids about manifesting spiritual presences and also evolution, so two things which are (completely?) incompatible can bombard a 5 year old and they can decide for themselves. Obviously based on the one which heals them on the spot. WINK

 

[camelCase]

Huh.
I never thought there was 'micro-evolution'.
Always thought that the two were the same thing.

Now I'm going to have to put my brain to work again =/
(And my school holidays just started, dang)

 

[seph ir oth]

Huh.
I never thought there was 'micro-evolution'.
Always thought that the two were the same thing.

Now I'm going to have to put my brain to work again =/
(And my school holidays just started, dang)

The two are one in the same; both are changes in DNA. The term was coined because evolution was basically proven at the microscopic level, and die-hard anti-evolutionists refuse to believe evolution as a whole.

 

[Accname]

For what i learned in my life the evolutional way of apes to humans of today is proven.
Although the evolution of a single cell swimming in an ocean up to a human creature is not, doesnt mean that already the small steps are worth to be tought in school.

But to be honest, in my school we were tought this stuff in biology classes.

 

[FireCat]

apes to humans of today is proven.

Is it really?

 

[tommerbob]

The two are one in the same; both are changes in DNA. The term was coined because evolution was basically proven at the microscopic level, and die-hard anti-evolutionists refuse to believe evolution as a whole.

lolwut?