When kids are taught only evolution, they may not know that there are other viewpoints. Kids should be presented with both sides and be able to decide what they believe for themselves. It makes more sense for creationism to be taught rather than evolution, seeing that an evolutionist rarely wins in a debate with a creationist.
Evolution is a unproven theory of origins that teaches that animals can evolve from so-called "simple life forms" to more complex life forms. If this idea was true, it would not need God. Therefore, teaching it in schools teaches atheism. After all, atheists have argued that teaching Intelligent Design teaches theism even if it makes no mention of God. Atheists say that God would be taught in public schools through I.D., well use your own logic people: teaching evolution teaches Atheism!
Keep in mind, evolution is still Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. No one can prove this. It is far likelier to simply be adaptation and natural selection. Darwin was a man, and he cannot know all the answers. He even believed in God. And Evolution cannot provide the ultimate starting point, nor can the Big Bang. Here is where scientific principle falls apart. It absolutely is promoting the idea God cannot and therefore does not exist, if Evolution is taught without acknowledging it may not be correct or acknowledging Intelligent Design is possible. This would create Atheism.
Evolution is passed off as fact in schools, which is not truthful, there is no evidence of evolution yet they say this is how it started so the whole basis of scientific reasoning is based on a LIE, its a worldview. I think theres more scientific evidence for GOD and I think Creation should be taught if evolution is taught in schools.
more specifically the current options of full Darwinian Mutation/Natural Selection vs Scientific Creationism and/or I.D. promote confusion and (to a lesser degree) atheism. The solution is not to teach a religious alternative, but to be far more rigorous in teaching evolution. This requires not just biology/geology, but the Philosophy of Science. This will probably never happen, as it would make school too interesting and *gasp*, educational. Plus there would be less people on the internet fighting.
The Theory of Evolution is more supported and proven correct as the Theory of Gravity. Putting Theory in something in the field of science doesn't mean it's some kind of "guess". A theory indicates that the evidence and experimental data correlates and agrees with the given hypothesis. Theories are explanations of a phenomenon in our reality while a Law is a mathematical equation or interpretation. Just as Gravity, Evolution is proven and can be tested with the same accuracy. But, Evolution should be taught in school because it is true and it is part of our life like the Theory of Relativity in Physics and Theory of Gravity.
Teaching that there is no God forces the beliefs of atheists on malleable young minds. Both creationism and atheism should be taught together. We aren't allowed to teach religion because atheists get upset. But, when we teach atheism and evangelicals get upset, there's no change. This is blatant biased towards atheists.
Along with the fact stated above, it's unfair for kids to be exploited from teaching only evolution. They don't get a choice in what they believe, they are just being spoon fed potentially false information. I think religious ideas should be taught alongside it so the kids have a choice.
My personal opinion is not that Evolution prompts atheism. I believe children need to know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
Although I am biased towards my own beliefs. I believe if schools taught the differences between the two, children, if not already a Christian like myself would come closer believing the Bible. :)
"A wise man is strong, And a man of knowledge increases power."
In that case don't teach it until it is a fact not a theory. I mean come on now don't take away religious beliefs / views from people. It is stupid that your going to let a person say to a child like this I mean it is like saying "shut up your religion is stupid"
If you found an argument on faith, as theism does, then it isn't actually an argument, since it isn't refutable. It's just a position. Evolution is science, it makes testable predictions, and is therefore fully refutable. As such it is appropriate for a school curriculum, while theism is not. Science is simply how we discover the nature of reality, while theism is unsupported belief founded on faith.
Its funny that this was used by balloonboy7 because the concept of Creationism is powered by faith and theology, which is not science. His argument is fallible because Creationism is based on burden of proof, a logical fallacy which states that being unable to prove something means that the opposing argument is correct. It is impossible to scientifically prove that God exists because theology, in itself, is not science. That does not mean it is wrong, just not subject to the scientific method. However, I would be willing to bet that most Creationists believe in gravity, which by definition of science, is refutable. Therefore, any widely accepted theory e.g. evolution, is subject to debate, no matter how much scientific evidence is provided.
The scientific principles do not fall apart because the theory’s were developed through scientific methods. There is a direct trail of evidence upon which the theories were developed and each step can be shown. This is a work in progress and is still called a theory. I would happily discuss with anyone, in logical terms, why one theory simply makes more sense than the other. I have never stated that god cannot and therefore does not exist, I have only asked that creationists show something tangible that points in that direction. So far the only thing I have seen from creationist is the idea that lacking any direct evidence to the contrary leaves only one explanation.
Creationists demand that everyone take a leap of faith with them in their beliefs. Taking a leap like that is just beyond reason. I am more than willing to have any creationist explain why they believe what they believe as long as it doesn’t start or conclude with they can’t be proven wrong. I will say it again. The lack of direct proof cannot be taken as the opposite point of view is true.
As for balloonboy7; I have yet to see any reasonable debate carried on between a creationist and an evolutionist let alone the creationist winning the majority of the debates. What I have witnessed is a lot of hostile attitudes and frustration on both sides because neither side is willing to listen.
I have no idea why the teaching of atheism would be considered a bad thing. It certainly stands up better than virgin birth and a divine plan by some mysterious being that requires no explanation other than faith.
Teaching evolution promotes scientifc thinking, not religious or irreligious thinking. Evolution falls under the scientific umbrella and has nothing to do with religion, it has been unfortunately hijacked... Think of the alternative, NOT teaching evolution means promoting ignorance. In any case, schools ought to be secular institutions not concerned with promoting any particular worldview but rather with providing a good standard of education.
Atheism isn't a position. It's the lack of a belief in a god or gods. The only thing that being an atheist entails is that lack of belief. The conclusion that being an atheist results in believing in evolution is a complete non sequitur. Atheists are fully capable of not believing in evolution. This question is stupid.
Look, let's think about this logically, people make their own minds up about religion and if they feel like they want to believe in basic logic and not believe in God then that's up to them, being told about the options won't change that at all. If anything it will help them "evolve as a person".
People will believe what they want to believe no matter what you tell them. You present all the data you want but if a person wants to believe in a higher god, they will. A person's belief stems mostly from their upbringing. By upbringing, i mean family upbringing. If the parents do not belong to a religion, then a child can be easily swayed to believe in other things or nothing at all. Plus by that hypothesis, there should be a lot more atheists in the world. The fact that most of the world belongs to a major religion proves that teaching evolution in school does not promote atheism.
While many (most) religions teach that evolution is untrue or even blasphemy, evolution itself has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. For another thing, it is possible to hold one's religious beliefs completely separate from what one believes about science; I.E., to respect/believe that the Grand Canyon was created over millions of years, but in a worship setting, still praise God for his or her creations.
Evolution has been scientifically proven many times, and that knowledge should not be denied any child or youth: They can make their own decisions and find their own religious path, if any.
While evolution can contradict certain religious views, it can also promote deism and other views of theism. Evolution does not deal with how life began. It only explains how living things can change over time with each generation. A person can think that life began from a deity and then that life evolves if they wanted.
Teaching evolution does not blatantly promote atheism. Some might argue that it indirectly promotes atheism, but them some could argue that science and spirituality have as of recently found a balance with each other and based on that idea evolution could still be considered a matter of a spiritual nature. Bottom line, people are going to adhere to what they want to believe and adhere to. So if you are not an atheist reviewing evolution probably will not make you an atheist.