I would agree with that.  It shouldn't be taught as 'fact' and, hopefully, isn't.  It should be taught as the scientific theory that best fits the observed evidence.  No more, no less.

Creationism or ID, on the other hand, shouldn't be taught as science at all.

Daiwa

And my point all along is that according to the definition of evolution...

 As per the World Book Dictionary the definition of Evolution is: something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile and ultimately all forms are traced back to to a simple, perhaps single celled, organism.

...it is impossible for evolution to, as you say,  "just happen"!!!

This evolution doesn't just happen and teaching it as such is wrong, very wrong.

Yes, this is the discipline of science. But where is the observed evidence for evolution as per the textbook and dictionary definition? There isn't any that support it.

You are quite wrong.  It is not only theoretically possible, it has occurred.

Nothing about the World Book Dictionary definition contradicts what I maintain.  I'd be interested to know what biology textbook you quoted from.  And what schools use it.

Name three examples.

And by examples I mean facts that contradict Darwin's theory, not anecdotes that contradict your understanding of evolution.

Why do you use a dictionary to learn about evolution?

Science is about facts and truth. Chemist Linus Pauling winner of 2 Nobel prizes said, "Science is the search for truth." Bruce Alberts Pres. of the US National Academy of Sciences said, "Science and lies cannot coexist."

Science can also be defined as knowledge, the study of reality.

I believe in Special Creation as per Genesis. Even though science gives evidence to the concept of Special Creation, no one that I know of is trying to make Creationism a science.

lula posts:

daiwa posts

Really? What mammal has evolved from a reptile in the process called evolution as per the definition of the World Book DIctionary ?

The biology textbook is the 1998 fourth edition entitled, "Biology" Prentice Hall, by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine.

Because when debating, definitions of terms is most important.

Here is the definition from the web...

and another...

ev·o·lu·tion

 (v-lshn, v-)

Definition of evolution as found on Internet:

I can understand this definition back in Darwin's day. But since then scientific research has gained many new insights as a result of new discoveries in biochemistry, molecular biology, and geology.

While molecular gentics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy, it does not confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no evolutionary progressive changes resulting in the development of new species, say from fishes to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics (sequences) confirms systematics, not phylogeny. Study Linnaeus, not Darwin.  

lula posts:

Evolutionists keep on postulating evidence for evolution..fossils, natural selection of improved new forms, mutations, and molecular sequences are some,.....yet, in all these, they fail to find it.

Unfortunately, the dictionary definition of the term is the sum total of your understanding of the subject.

You have so little knowledge of science that you probabl;y have no idea how wrong Pauling was in that case. It should also be noted that he said this in a speach about world peace. He didn't write it in a scientific essay.

Remember that science is not about authority (that is religion) but about facts. This explains why the statement is wrong:

The idea that science is the search for truth is an old one, but it’s not true (at least in any useful way!). Instead of considering all of science, I’ll restrict my attention to physics, because that’s the field in which the ideas of “theory”, “truth” and so on are easiest to describe. Let’s consider what it would mean for a physical theory to be true. A theory in physics is a mathematical structure of some kind together with a mapping from that structure (or perhaps some subset thereof) to entities that are postulated to exist in reality and their behaviours. The mapping is often called an “interpretation” of the theory. A theory might then be considered to be true if those postulated entities are things that really exist and the behaviours inherent in the theory are the ways those entities really behave. In other words, a true theory is an exact representation of some aspect of reality. If science were a search for truth, then the structures and relationships in successive scientific theories in a given field would presumably have to be successively more like the structures and relationships that exist out there in the world. But this isn’t the case!

http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000116.html

The fact that it was Linus Pauling who made the mistake doesn't make the mistake less severe or non-existing, but I am sure you thought you would impress us with this appeal to authority.

However, to the scientific mind an unknown person explaining why not X is more valuable than an authority stating X.

Actually, we keep finding these forms and mutations. We found surprisingly many fossils to back up evolution.

If only it was. But the dictionary definition doesn't even say as much about evolution as Lula constantly brings up. It would be fun to watch her "explain" her views on evolution if there weren't so many of her kind that the ignorant could force the rest of the world to learn their religion instead of science. Look at how badly countries are doing that actually teach Creationism as science!

Just imagine if it were as socially acceptable to be ignorant about gravity as it is about evolution. We would have people like Lula telling us that gravity is not fact and has been disproven. And the examples for this proof would be the fact that no scientist has ever found a rock floating in the air, a "transitional fossil" that "proves" that rocks fall from ten feet to zero feet.

Plus those people would argue that the theory of gravity claims that rocks can float, just like Darwin's theory claims that one species "turns into" another.

(I should note that there is no evidence that the planets really travel around the sun when they are out of our sight. They might teleport away and back once they are on the other side of the sun.)

They're trying to confuse and fool people. The sort of thing Satan does.

I wrote about gravity here: https://forums.joeuser.com/382903

I am arguing that gravity has been proven wrong since I couldn't find transitional rocks floating at three feet, hence it is impossible for rocks to fall from ten feet to the ground.

The Biology textbook, website and dictionary definitions of evolution are basicially the same thing. I say evolution according to these definitions never occurred and can not occur.   

To that you say:

Really? Evolution has occurred? Where? What? How so?

What mammal has evolved from a reptile in the process called evolution as per the definition of the World Book DIctionary? Where? What? How so?

Still waiting for your answer and detailed explanation.