DHW: In my view, it is totally in order to teach evolution as a scientific theory (not fact), and it is totally in order to point out the possible flaws in some of its arguments. All that is needed in schools, folks, is a sensible, well-balanced, genuinely scientific approach, videlicet an agnostic approach.-David: Ah, the picket fence again. Don't you recognize what I am doing in the Nature's Complexity thread? How can it be that complex starting from inorganic matter? Because it has to be to create life as we know it. Where did self-correcting mutations, invented by the living organisms come from? If they arrived initially by Darwin's hunt-and-peck random mechanisms, how did they survive the initial mistakes to arrive at the perfect DNA formula? These genome processes had to be there from the beginning. Where did all the information come from in the layer upon layer of genome codes we are finding? My answer as always is our friendly UI.-The question posed by this thread is what should be taught to our children. The articles to which you have drawn our attention under "Life's biologic complexity" and "Nature's Wonders" are hugely revealing (thank you for this constant supply of goodies), and your final question ... "Where did all the information come from...?" ... is absolutely the crux of the matter. But your answer ("our friendly UI") already raises questions which in my view have no place in science lessons, and should only be dealt with as hypotheses in other lessons ... perhaps philosophy (including but going way beyond religious studies), which some intellectuals are campaigning to have taught in schools. -What questions does your answer raise? Please sir, where did the UI come from? Which is more complicated, a UI or DNA? Why do you expect me to believe in an undesigned UI but not in undesigned DNA? Why do you call your UI friendly when it blew a tree down on my Dad? Why did your friendly UI invent evil/death/ disease? What's the use of a UI to me if it isn't friendly? Whose version of the UI is correct: Rabbi Cohen's, Father Ignatius's, Imam Ahmed's? Why does Professor Dawkins say your UI is a delusion? -I repeat, let the children be taught the theory of evolution, pointing out possible flaws, but in answer to the question of origins, let them be offered a choice of answers ... not just yours, or the Pope's, or Dawkins'.

Kent (broken_cynic): What do you mean when you say 'theory?' When you say 'fact?'-I presume you're referring to my suggestion that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory (not fact), but it would be helpful if in all your posts you would quote the passage you are commenting on. That saves time not only for the person you're addressing, but also for other people who may be trying to follow the discussion.-On the "Epistemological framework" thread, we discussed the distinction between knowledge and belief, and I attempted to define them as follows:-Knowledge = information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it. ("General consensus" allows us to exclude certain categories of people whom we might call "cranks", although this is obviously a dangerously subjective area.)-Belief = information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.
 
Knowledge is the closest we can come to ultimate truth.-In general, I would define "fact" in the same terms as "knowledge". I would define "theory" as an explanation based on a set of hypotheses which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on their truth.-In the context of evolution, there are large numbers of people ... disregarding the above-mentioned "cranks" ... who do not accept the overall explanation, and although you and I may disagree with them, they are as entitled to their beliefs as we are. There are also those like David and myself who do accept some of the hypotheses but not others. This even applies to the scientific community, where there is no consensus on gradualism v. punctuated equilibrium, on the causes of innovation, on the role of epigenetics, on how to define speciation. -If you are interested in my own personal views, I most certainly believe that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms, that processes of adaptation cause minor changes to existing species, that punctuated equilibrium is more likely than gradualism, and that in accordance with the demands of particular environments natural selection determines which changes survive and which do not. I have no idea how the initial mechanisms for evolution came into being ... and do not regard that as relevant to the theory ... and have no preconceived notions concerning the all-important subject of innovations, without which evolution could not happen.-I hope this will make it clear to you why I would have evolution taught as theory and not as fact, and how I distinguish between the two. Finally, I apologize for giving such a lengthy answer to your short questions!

DAVID: This is the right answer:-http://www.cagle.com/2012/04/progressive-devolution/-speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil-Thank you. A good laugh, and well worth a thousand words!

As a non-scientist, I can only accept the scientific consensus on certain matters, such as the age of our Earth and the process whereby all forms of life are descended from other forms, and so like her I reject Creationism. Science has provided enough evidence to convince me. But science has not provided ANY evidence for the ability of chance to generate the unfathomable complexities of life and consciousness. -I've been at Loch Ness. It is a large lake but we did not see Nessie that day. A form of creationism I can accept is Theistic Evolution. It fits the science and accepts your point that chance can't work.- 
> For believers like David, Creationism is unacceptable precisely because it goes against current scientific knowledge; but intelligent design as such does not, and it is emphatically NOT an alternative to the theory of evolution. You can believe in the latter but also believe that chance is incapable of assembling the mechanisms necessary for its origin and its development, and therefore that those mechanisms have been designed. Science doesn't come into it. What should be taught in science lessons? The theory of evolution, including the fact that there is no scientific consensus on some aspects of it. What should not be taught in science lessons? -What should be taught in high school is that there was an evolutionary process, but we still don't know exactly how it worked, and Darwin's theory is only one of several contestants, based on the newer science. But I accept my form of creationism as stated above.