@Neb: I disagree. I think you believe evolution is a lie. Clearly since we disagree on this, it's a disputed area. So I demand you stop claiming that you do not believe evolution is a lie. You're clearly biased when you present your viewpoint on that, and the question of what Neb believes about evolution is highly controversial.

@Steinhardt in some countries like Turkey, high school students does graduate from highschool without even stduying a little medicine and can become great doctors after 6 years in medicine. (you do not need to be a graduate student to study medicine in Turkey like in USA)

In USA you gotto be a graduate student to do so, and I can see no harm if they graduate without knowing anything about curing cancer.

Besides, cancer is more related with genetics rather than evolution. It is origin is still disputed. I know some people who "do not believe in" cancer itself xD They may be right, I have always thought, maybe cancer has nothing to do with genetics but something else that is waiting to be discovered by chance like penisilin :D

But under any circumstances, They do teach basic genetics in high schools in Turkey and IM sure it is also same for USA. I see no harm in that. These are not controversial areas. But if they start talking about "evolution as a fact/theory" etc, then I think it is wrong. You get my standing already.

I also do not over generalise like "evolution is biology/genetics so no biology/genetics in highschool" I say teach biology, teach genetics but speculate on evolution.

okey let me put it this way " I THINK evolution is a lie". True
But "I do not claim evolution is a lie here". Also true. I just said that so that we do not start dealing with rather irrelevant issues.

@abgemacht see the message that starts with: "Also @ orathaic :D I found what exactly you are looking for! " that is also what you are looking for as well...

Actually, no, cancer is entirely about evolution. How do you think cancer progresses?

And in this case, I'm not talking about people who will become doctors. I'm talking about people who will *not* become doctors, but who should not go through life without having any idea of what medicine is and why it works. Don't you want people to be able to tell the difference between real medicine and quackery?

What you're really doing is exposing that you do not understand how these things work. Perhaps if your high school had been nice enough to teach you some biology...

@Neb

I suspect you're about 16 years old. Am I close?

@Neb, I disagree. I claim you do not think evolution is a lie. Oh, darnit. Now that's disputed, so we can't talk about it. So stop talking about it!

@steinhardt and if your high school had been nice enough to teach you some courtesy :D

I would like to remind you a simple fact that those who graduate highschool will not become doctors. If anyone who graduates from high school could be a doctor then being being a doctor would be no different than being a butcher i am afraid.

I also remind you that we are talking about high school education. you need to go to university to become a doctor where you will learn medicine and genetics etc. in-depth.

You say genetics is closely related with evolution. But remember cancer is made by mutation of genes. Evolution is related with changes/mutations in the whole system. I learnt genetics without studying evolution. If you cannot separate genetics from evolution that is sad I am afraid...

Look at your educated claim: cancer progresses through mutations, so it is related with evolution. But are we mutated from some other creature? Or are we adapted to our environment through changes in our genes (there is a slight difference here between genetics, I am sure you know what I mean)... You know the latter is accepted.

Furthermore, another argument: Maybe because the search for cure of cancer fails because we are too focused on genetics. Maybe it is related with something else...

Now I tell you what you do. You cannot find any arguments against my claims sadly. So you decide to attack me. You attack my highschool education, my knowledge about cancer... You even had to change the topic to attack me...

Excuse me but HOW LOWER ARE YOU GONNA GO?

@abgemacht and Steinhardt: Look at your own messages and make a guess about your own ages... :3 This conversations seems to be over :D

If it's over, it's only because I keep asking for references and you keep sending us ridiculous and irrelevant links.

Show me a white paper that discredits evolution. If you can't do that, your entire argument is baseless.

@Neb: You misunderstand my argument. The progression of cancer is due to somatic evolution, which is not exactly the same thing as what you've been blindly flailing against.

I hope you never have to deal with cancer someday, but if you or somebody close to you does, you're going to find that you're very appreciative of the people who adopt a scientific approach to studying it. And, I suspect you'll be glad that their treatments are based upon documented evidence of what treatments have been most effective and what those treatments are doing both in terms of cell signaling and somatic evolution and also on a larger scale.

omg you have made my entire argument completely baseless with your single sentence ;D

Being a 16 year old person who has terrible high school education, I ask for your forgiveness, I should not even attempted to have a debate with such mature people like you.

Anyway, my arguments may seem ridiculous to you, I could foresee and accept that fact. But frankly I did not except such intolerance and rudeness...

You're offended that I am asking for references to support your claims?

@steinhardth - I cannot leave just without saying this. I had some very close friends whom I lost to cancer. What I see from them was their chance of being cure was completely unknown to doctors. And they probably suffered from the chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment more then they suffered from the cancerous cell...

Anyway i am just writing this as a sad anecdote. I have no willingness to debate anymore, congradulations on completely deterring me please consider it as my claims were completely baseless. Ta-ta :D

Yes abgemacht I am completely offended by you asking for references. It is not about you sending a message like "I suspect you're about 16 years old. Am I close?" or Ste's "I disagree. I claim you do not think evolution is a lie. Oh, darnit. Now that's disputed, so we can't talk about it. So stop talking about it!" As you say there is no criticism of evolution in the literature or anywhere. So all my claims are completely baseless. I am enlightened...

hehe :D So that is my final ta-ta... miss meh :3

I will not be held responsible for what others have said to you.

My question about your age was genuine. I asked it because the arguments you've made sound like they've come from a kid. It was to gain context to your argument, not to belittle you.

I see you agree that there is no criticism of evolution and since you've still not supplied references that say otherwise, I can only assume that wasn't sarcasm and you've actually change your position. I'm glad this conversation helped you.

For your consideration:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2627#comic

This happens all the time. Religious people mistake reasoned argument for intolerance. Tolerance doesn't mean we have to agree with statements that are incorrect Neb! Sorry!

:D Awesome I am religious now *-* If there is a heaven I might be closer to it more than ever then... Dear mafialligator, it is interesting how you look at the issue. I criticise science and you just see me as a "religious person". There is no between for you. A man can be either for science or for religion. A man cannot be for or against both, according to you.

Did you even understand what I have been saying?

A man criticises science, and you start attacking to his personality, education, you start teasing him... But will there be a moment you will just stop yourself and ask:

Are we being bigoted?

It is awesome to see how these self-righteous believers of "science" become a mob with pitchforks and fires like in medieval times.

Lets burn the witch who criticise the science! :D

You do not have to agree with my statements just as I do not have to agree with your statements. But you have to KEEP your COURTESY under any conditions, at which you desperately fail my dear friend...

Oh but who cares about the courtesy...

Lets burn the witch who criticise the science! :D

'Did you even understand what I have been saying? '

Yes, you have been saying we shouldn't teach a scientific theory which forms the basis of modern biology in a science class. I think this would be misleading students.

You have been saying there is controversy and appear to have provided links argueing over the a fact/theory definition - not that anyone think the theory is wrong.

You conclude that some people will be thought that evolution is a fact when it's only a theory. I would argue there are no facts in science and more science education is needed not less.

You would put critical thinking up as important, and i would agree with you. It is and should be included in a maths class. Logic/critical thinking/analysis is something which is rather hard to test but should be thought to the highest standard. Probably along with semantics...

Unfortunately anything which is hard to test gets ignored by some schools who will inevitably focus on getting better grades. We do need a better education system, but your arguement is not for that.

You didn't criticise science, there is a place for that, you proposed NOT teaching a basic part of science to high schoolers, you made a daging proposal with nothing to back it up. You didn't propose that we teach students science in the science class and philosophy in the philosophy class; your suggestion is damaging and we are right to call you out on it.

Would you do the same if you saw someone argueing to teach pro-anorexia lessons in high school?

Oh good, your wikipedia articlemseems to back up what i've been saying:

'Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse.'

It's pretty simple really. Facts contribute to the theories. Fact: change occurs in animals. We've seen at at many different levels (the moths, which no one argues didn't change, just the why is argued, and microorganisms like the flu virus). We may not understand fully why, but we have proposed theories (including evolution ala Darwin). Simple fact is, the changes occur. Now, science is about exploring our universe aroudn us and tryuing to understand the how and the why in so far as the natural world is concerned. Evolution is a theory as to the why and it is the best one science has to date, so it shoudl be taught to 8th grade and higher science along with an encouragement to go and challenge it, test it, see if it holds up and, in so doing, learn more. Maybe the student finds it holds up comnpletely, maybe the student has some continuing doubts, but they do this exploration of the theory via the scientific method.

I think I've mad eit clear in the past that I believe evolution/science and religion can mix fine. If one thinks of the supreme being as the architect of physics - the one who put everything in motion and defined the laws science seeks to explore, then there is no conflict. There is only conflict if one is adamant that there can't be a God or that God literally said "let there be light" and did all this stuff in seven days including taking one of Adam's ribs to make Eve and that all measure of animals sprung up fully formed blah, blah, blah. Any rational person can see that there is a middle ground between the literalist interpretation of the Bible and militant athiesm and generall, rational people realize that nothing is ever quite what it seems and no one has all the answers, therefore the answer probably resides somewhere between the two.

So, we shoudl continue to explore the universe around us and encourage through education the younger generations to do the same, not get bogged down in a specific philsophy and refuse to expand our minds and be open to *all* possibilities. So evolution *should* be taught in science classes and creationism *should* be taught in philosophy or comparative religions. Neither shouldbe banned and neither belongs in the other's classroom.

@Neb, I am curious tO know If you have a science background. I assume you don't. You probably have experience with biology in high school and university. No offense is meant. You just don't seem to fully grasp the science.

I am also lost in your cancer/evolution comments. Your point is either convuluted or you are making an illogical assumption. That is simply a criticism of the clarity of hour argument I'll try to address the issue.

First, Evolution is largely based in genetics and inheritance. However, genetics is not based in evolution. Genetics is reductionist while evolution is looking at the whole. You can learn genetics without evolution but you would have a hard time fully understanding evolution without understanding genetics.

Second, evolved traits are not I here fly good traits, but they are still evolved. For example, let's say that there is an island that has a bunch of birds, and there is an unseasonably wet season that favors birds that have long thin beaks for digging worms out of debris and doesn't favor short thick beaks for breaking open hard seed shells. That will lead to more birds with long thin beaks the next generation. This is because the gene pool will be thinned to include this beak structure. If the next season is unseasonably warm the long thin beak will now be selected against. Thus, the new trait is not good. You could make a similar argument for sickle cell.

If I completely missed your argument then please elaborate so I can comprehend your point.

@Neb: Science is about things that we believe because we can and have tested them via experiment. Religion is about things we believe but cannot test. Just because something is untestable does not make it wrong, but it does make it not science.

Science has precisely one core belief: that the world around us is inherently predictable, in the sense that if we do an experiment and arrive at a result, continuing to do the same experiment will continue to produce that result. Quantum mechanics makes understanding the results a bit more complicated, but the same principle holds.

So, consider the question of whether the Sun will appear in the sky tomorrow. The scientific answer is that it always has in the past, and we have been able to use this to develop a model which has made many correct predictions (and no incorrect predictions) about celestial objects. Therefore, we conclude that yes, the Sun will appear in the sky tomorrow. [If it does not, we would be forced to conclude that there was an error in our models, so we'd throw them out in favor of new ones that were able to explain both all of the past times the Sun came up and the one time it didn't.]

Now, what if I told you that I believed the Sun would not come up tomorrow, although you had no evidence of this, but a lot of other people you talked to also thought it might not come up tomorrow? Maybe even an ancient civilization produced a document claiming it wouldn't come up tomorrow. Would it be bigoted of me to tell you that your belief should not be taught in a science class? Is it intolerant of me to point out that you have no logical basis for your claim that the Sun will not rise?

Again, you are welcome to hold whatever beliefs make you happy. If you would like to go through life believing that 1+1=3, nobody's going to stop you. On the other hand, such a belief is likely to mean you have trouble doing things like paying bills, and that you're easily swindled. So, as a society, we try hard to teach you the mathematical background necessary to be a functioning adult as part of your basic education. The same is true of science -- a certain level of understanding about how the world works is necessary to be a functioning adult. Those who do not believe in modern medicine are welcome to their beliefs, but also have a shorter life span than those who do. Those who adopt a style of scientific reasoning, of determining whether something is true by testing it instead of avoiding the test and arguing it, tend to get the right answer more often. These are basic life skills, and as such, it's our duty to teach them to every child while growing up.

And, if you'd prefer to go through life discarding these, that's your choice. On the other hand, it's been pointed out that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. If you treat your computer as magic and I understand it well enough not to, which one of us is going to lose more money when part of our computer breaks? If you treat medicine as magic, and I understand it well enough not to, which one of us is going to make better choices if faced with multiple treatment options? In effect, yes, you can go through life treating the world around you as magical and miraculous, and that may well be what makes you happiest, but there are severe consequences, too. I am fine with members of our society choosing to take those consequences, but it's our duty to make sure they understand what they're missing before they make that choice.