I am reserching for a speech for public speaking.

[SilverFang]

the topic in witch I chose to reserch is on teaching evolution and creation in school.

sadly I need both parts of the argument.one that supports it, and one that opposes the idea. I ovcorse oppose the idea, but we need to reaserch are topics of choice, so we can gather enouphe info so sombody else can give a speech, and this topic.


I thank you for all the help you can give me, and god bless you all.

[Technomancer]

The best website explaining the evidence for evolution and the flaws in creationist attacks on the subject is

http://www.talkorigins.org

For a more religious perspective, you could also examine:
http://www.asa3.org/

You should also think about checking out Carl Zimmer's book "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" is also an excellent resource as it deals with both the scientific and religous issues.

[Peanut]

Funny, I just recently finished a persuasive essay on that exact topic.
Since your looking for information on teaching evolution and creation in school I'd recommend looking in the newspaper or on elibrary (if you our your school has an account for it) both should have what your looking for.

[Dante]

hmm.. reasons to support evolution being taught in schools. About the only good reason I can think of, is to keep the ACLU froming sueing just about everyone and generally being a pain in... the head... yeah. But other than that, none, students don't want to learn it (or anything else for that matter) and as a whole, the entire theory has little application in actual everyday life situations. I've got a better Idea though, let's do away with biology all together! High School would be a lot less stressful for the lack of a subject we'll never use!

[Technomancer]

There are good reasons to teach the theory. First and foremost is that it is the central unifiying concept of biology an it explains the reasons for everything else that we see. In the words of Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution". The theory is also of particular relevance in geology, since it properly explains the nature and distribution of fossil life.

It is important to note that evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists including the Christian ones. A theory would not gain such currency if it was not supported by compelling evidence. Moreover, there is no serious rival to evolutionary theory so it is not as if it is at all a controversial subject in scientific circles.

As far as real-life applications go, they certainly do exist. The evolutionary paradigm has become very important in engineering for example in the form of genetic algorithms/genetic programs. These have become powerful tools for both non-convex optimization as well as understanding how real-world biological diversity develops. We also see evolution in action througout the medical field, in animal breeding and in pest control. Of course, the worth of a subject is not determined solely by applicability. Education should encompass the principal scientific, historical and cultural developments of one's time.

[termyt]

Wow. I agree with Technomancer. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origins of species. While it is best to leave "the truth" in such discussions to the realm of philosophers, science still craves to find the exact nature of the universe. In order to find the truth, science must experiment, form hypotheses and experiment again. Anything in the midst of this process is called a theory until it is proven (and thus becomes law) or disproved, and thus becomes a historical oddity.

Evolution remains a theory. My only objection to its teaching is that, since it "has no serious rival," it is often presented as fact in our classrooms. That is erroneous and ought to make anyone who professes to live by the scientific method a bit squeamish. Another example of what happens when politics is allowed to intermingle with science.

Just as a note, intelligent design is also widely accepted, even by many who accept evolution as well.

[Technomancer]

Well, you must remember that scientists do not "prove" theories, they can only disprove them. Quantum theory, the theory of relativity, etc are also all theories that are not proven (in fact we have good reason to believe that they are incomplete as written). We can say that they are consistent with the data, and that so far they have been successful at predicting hithero unobserved phenomena. However, there may be other theories that provide the same results up to a certain point (e.g. string theory). If they can be tested they may replace the old if they are more successful. Such a thing cannot be ruled out, which is why direct proof is never possible. On the other hand if a theory fails the test of prediction, then it is clearly wrong.

A theory in the scientific sense is an explanatory framework for a set of observed facts. It is testable against reality, and offers predictions about what we should see in nature. In this sense evolution is a scientific theory since it has successfully withstood the tests of time and nature.

Intelligent Design (ID) is more problematic as a theory because of its lack of precise definition, as well as explanatory/predictive power. If one labels ID as the idea that "irreducibly complex" structures/behaviours cannot evolve (which is the typical def'n), then one is out of luck. This is an argument from incredulity and is not scientific at all. Saying that complex systems must be designed is a worthless statement without an adequete, quantitative def'n of complexity or a means of testing the same. This view of ID is however, utterly marginal in the scientific community and so has no currency amongst researchers. In any event the central tenants of this theory have been shown to be incorrect both by biologists and computer scientists.

However, if one abuses the terminology one can think of a weak form of ID, which perhaps better termed 'Theistic Evolution'. This, as its adherents will agree, is not a scientific position, but rather a theological/philosophical one. Essentially, it recognizes that the general theory is correct but still admits a role for God either through direct intervention (fiddling the dice so to speak) or His action through secondary causes. This last variant is reasonably common although noone will hold that it is at all a scientific view.

[Doubleshadow]

Try Darwin on Trial by and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds both by Phillip E. Johnson. (Slightly outdated)

http://www.drdrino.com <-- (Notorious in academic circles, but valid general arguements, Dr. Kent (?) came and spoke at my college)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ <-- (I've not searched this site for myself)

I'm a young earth creationist myself.

[SereneDolphin]

Doubleshadow has a point. Charles Darwin, if that is who she is referring to, started the whole "survival of the fittest" idea, and had a few theories of his own about creation.

Good luck on your speech, research is due Monday. I'm still working on mine.