Should Schools be Required to Teach Evolution?

[morningstar2651]

College Seminaries teach different views on basic doctrine like free-will, endtime views, document sources, tithing, women in ministry etc. A good professor would allow the student to make a choice and not favor one over the other. Even though he strongly sides with one view with overwhelming evidence he will show the student all views and allow them to chose on these certain gray areas in theology.
I say...teach the kids both not as scientific fact but theory with Biblical and scientific evidence. Younger kids can get the parents involved through homework allowing family preferences.

Science isn't a matter of family preference, nor do high school students have the qualifications to determine the validity of a scientific theory. Evolution isn't up for debate - it is an accepted scientific theory and fundamental to the study of biology.

 

[mpok1519]

I would not be suprised at all if the theory of Naturalistic Evolution is discarded in the very near future. With the technology that is being developed to help find and solve clues of the origin of life up to the present, it is going to be very interesting. It is true that the Bible doesn't explain science, but it does give us clues to at least the earth's beginning. From what the Bible teaches about God's nature, the dinosaurs were not intended, nor was the brutality exhibited by so many creatures in their struggle for survival. What I and some others believe is that science is going to (if it hasn't already) confirm that something occured in the very distant past that was opposite of true nature.

Evidence? Source?

I'm not at all surprised at how the creation myth is being discarded as science. Not one bit. Why? It's not scientific.

 

[Glas Ridire]

It seems to me that you tend to take some wishy washy approach to the truth.

Not wishy washy at all, kinda the opposite. Like the gay marriage debate, where one side says "not letting gays marry denies them equal rights because of insurance and inheritance and stuff like that" and the other side says "marriage is between man and woman and making it anything else denies our religious rights" . . . well, I say "Civil unions for civil stuff, marriage according to whatever religion or lack thereof the people have, in a true separation of church and state fashion". Not wishy wasy, just refusing to play red or black checkers . .. there are more options on the table, more solutions and some that are truer to founding principles.

Maybe I am wrong about criticising you like that, but it is rather silly to compare abiogenesis (and all the experimentation that has gone into trying to understand it) to creationism. It seems to display a lack of understanding of science.

It is funny, you having not been alive long enough to have accumulated the science credits I actually have in my transcripts, for you to say that. Real scientists admit bias, they admit that their ideas and preconceptions can affect outcomes. I have made it clear. . . I hope, that I am not against the teaching of any science that can be replicated in independent labs. Real science is good stuff and kids should learn about it. Back in the 70's & 80's though a fellow by the name of Carl Sagan presented his point of view to countless public school children. Carl presented as science "the great dice roll, where just the right combination of ooze met the right food source at the right temperature, in a solution of the right PH balance, and sparked to life figuring out how to reproduce before dying . .. thereafter evolving into both a rare orchid and your grandfather." <-- this is what I am referring to as the "atheists creation myth". There isn't yet science to support it, there may be eventually, but for now it is just as valid as the Great Green Arkleseizure. It belongs in mythology, until proven . .. scientifically. That is science, real science. Things we wish to be true, don't get to be taught as fact until they have been proven. That is all. Kinda like asking for separation of church and State for-real-sies in regard to gay marriage. I am asking for a separation of science from myth in our education systems. I realize this means closing the door on creationists. . . I am okay with that. I'd just like real, unbiased, not a hypothesis anymore but proven science to be taught as science. I am not saying Carl's ideas shouldn't be taught, just that they belong with Jehovah, Great Green Arkleseizure, Titans and gods, and all the rest of the ideas some people like, and wish were true but have not scientifically proven yet. It is exactly because I don't lack an understanding of science that I can separate wheat from chaff and know which part to put in bread. I understand your misunderstanding and thank you for your candor.

 

[CabVet]

I would not be suprised at all if the theory of Naturalistic Evolution is discarded in the very near future. With the technology that is being developed to help find and solve clues of the origin of life up to the present, it is going to be very interesting.

Funny you say that since one thing (evolution) has absolutely nothing to do with the other (the origin of life).

 

[Mystman]

Do we actually have any evidence this is true? Are Creationists more likely to become criminals, or abuse drugs and alcohol, or have low-paying jobs than evolutionists?

Well the important part is the scientific mindset. And that probably doesn't get tested. There might have been (or at least they could do) research on a group of people and ask them whether they believe in creationism or evolution, but if everyone just believes in evolution or creation because their teacher told them to, then it's of little use.

I'd think that a population with a scientific mindset produces more proper scientists, is less likely to believe in weird conspiracy theories, less likely to go faith healers instead of proper doctors, might make better voting decisions, etc.

The important thing is critical thinking. I'd see that (with the associated logic) as an essential skill that all students should be taught. Not just believing what you're told, but knowing why, and how likely it is that it is true. You could use evolution vs. creationism as a case study, but might as well use phlogiston-theory (that was our example in high school..), flat earth, ether, medicine vs. faithhealers, etc.

 

[Mystman]

Everyone should be exposed to the basic principles of the knowledge humans have acquired. AP classes and college are for more advanced, in-depth study.

What is a basic principle, and why should everyone be exposed to it?

Our school system is divided in a number of ways. 60% of kids is in the "please just let me out to get a job already" education track. 20% is on the "I wanna learn some more before going for a fancier job, but nothing too fancy". 20% is on the "I wanna go to university" track.

Of the "I wanna go to university" track, about half is in the exact sciences track. That was my class. We got the most basic of introductions into quantum physics, what could be called a basic principle of the knowledge humans have acquired. No math or anything, just a bit of wave/particle duality, particle in a box, etc. Most people in my class absolutely hated it, barely managed to remember enough factoids to pass the exams, and when I see them they still reminiscence about how much they hate quantum physics and of how little they remember from it (almost boasting).

Those people are now medical doctors and structural engineers. Smart people.

Something tells me that forcing the basics of quantum mechanics on someone who knew that she wanted to be a hairdresser since she was 8, wouldn't have ended much better.

 

[Paradoxum]

Not wishy washy at all, kinda the opposite. Like the gay marriage debate, where one side says "not letting gays marry denies them equal rights because of insurance and inheritance and stuff like that" and the other side says "marriage is between man and woman and making it anything else denies our religious rights" . . . well, I say "Civil unions for civil stuff, marriage according to whatever religion or lack thereof the people have, in a true separation of church and state fashion". Not wishy wasy, just refusing to play red or black checkers . .. there are more options on the table, more solutions and some that are truer to founding principles.

What is the point though? If anything what you propose seems more likely to destroy marriage in society than anything else.

It is funny, you having not been alive long enough to have accumulated the science credits I actually have in my transcripts, for you to say that.

I'm not allowed to say it because I haven't been alive as long as you?

Real scientists admit bias, they admit that their ideas and preconceptions can affect outcomes. I have made it clear. . . I hope, that I am not against the teaching of any science that can be replicated in independent labs. Real science is good stuff and kids should learn about it.

I agree.

Back in the 70's & 80's though a fellow by the name of Carl Sagan presented his point of view to countless public school children. Carl presented as science "the great dice roll, where just the right combination of ooze met the right food source at the right temperature, in a solution of the right PH balance, and sparked to life figuring out how to reproduce before dying . .. thereafter evolving into both a rare orchid and your grandfather." <-- this is what I am referring to as the "atheists creation myth".

Even if it had not been tested I wouldn't call it a myth, and that is why I find it hard to take your view seriously. It would be called a hypothesis. Hypothesise aren't the same sort of thing as myths, such as the earth being on the back of a turtle. There is a difference between scientists saying there could be other dimensions and saying that the Mad Hatter lives at the centre of the earth.

Scientific hypotheses shouldn't be taught the same as scientific theories or laws, but I do think there is a place for talking about the best scientific explanation what happened.

There isn't yet science to support it, there may be eventually, but for now it is just as valid as the Great Green Arkleseizure. It belongs in mythology, until proven . .. scientifically. That is science, real science. Things we wish to be true, don't get to be taught as fact until they have been proven. That is all. Kinda like asking for separation of church and State for-real-sies in regard to gay marriage. I am asking for a separation of science from myth in our education systems. I realize this means closing the door on creationists. . . I am okay with that. I'd just like real, unbiased, not a hypothesis anymore but proven science to be taught as science. I am not saying Carl's ideas shouldn't be taught, just that they belong with Jehovah, Great Green Arkleseizure, Titans and gods, and all the rest of the ideas some people like, and wish were true but have not scientifically proven yet.

I'm not sure your using the words correctly.

It is exactly because I don't lack an understanding of science that I can separate wheat from chaff and know which part to put in bread. I understand your misunderstanding and thank you for your candor.

Well I don't know about your understanding of science, but perhaps then the problem for me that you seem to be talking as if hypothesis and myth have the same meaning.

(I'm not even sure if hypothesis is the right word for abiogenesis, because from my understand alot of experiments, etc, have been done to try to show that it is possible.)

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

What is a basic principle, and why should everyone be exposed to it?

General education. Math, reading, science, etc.

Our school system is divided in a number of ways. 60% of kids is in the "please just let me out to get a job already" education track. 20% is on the "I wanna learn some more before going for a fancier job, but nothing too fancy". 20% is on the "I wanna go to university" track.

Of the "I wanna go to university" track, about half is in the exact sciences track. That was my class. We got the most basic of introductions into quantum physics, what could be called a basic principle of the knowledge humans have acquired. No math or anything, just a bit of wave/particle duality, particle in a box, etc. Most people in my class absolutely hated it, barely managed to remember enough factoids to pass the exams, and when I see them they still reminiscence about how much they hate quantum physics and of how little they remember from it (almost boasting).

Those people are now medical doctors and structural engineers. Smart people.

Something tells me that forcing the basics of quantum mechanics on someone who knew that she wanted to be a hairdresser since she was 8, wouldn't have ended much better.

At what age are kids expected to chose? I didn't know for sure what I wanted to do with my life until I was 20. I was in university at the time and lucky that I was because otherwise it wouldn't have been feasible. I feel you're doing a disservice to kids by asking them to have it all figured out at a young age, when instead you should give them a broad education with the hopes that they'll find something they're passionate about.

At any rate, back to the OP itself: if you teach biology, you should teach evolution.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm actually quite encouraged at the poll results so far, I was expecting it to be at least relatively close.

But to echo a lot of the posters already, Evolution should be a requirement in any biology class.

Creationism can be taught in a religious studies class of some sort. However it should only be taught with the stipulation that it's what the Christian religion believes is true, and is not taught as fact. Either way, it certainly has no place in a science class.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

'Should Schools be Required to Teach the Cornerstone Theory of Biology?'

Why, yes. Yes, they should.

 

[Glas Ridire]

I'm not allowed to say it because I haven't been alive as long as you?

You can say whatever you want. I strongly support the 1st amendment and human rights . . . can you credibly criticize my understanding of science? Not at your age, you haven't had long enough to have done enough at university. That is all, not a slam, just an acknowledgement of reality, kinda like 9 year olds and high school, the 9 year old simply hasn't had enough time to be there yet, doesn't mean they won't eventually and maybe get better grades but time. . . is something humans can only move one direction through.

Even if it had not been tested I wouldn't call it a myth, and that is why I find it hard to take your view seriously.

Don't you think Fundamentalists say the other side of the coin? "Puddle of goo begetting all plant and animal life by random chance" isn't a proven fact, why would you call it other than myth. Both sides have a right to criticize the other for stating their origin of life view is fact. Til it is decided, conclusively, with real science. . . I'd prefer the intellectual honesty of saying "we don't know yet, but here are some of the ways we are trying to find out".

Scientific hypotheses shouldn't be taught the same as scientific theories or laws, but I do think there is a place for talking about the best scientific explanation what happened.

The best guess. . . . I say everybody's best guess, opinion, wish, personal revelation from plate bearing angel, insight from Bhudda, or Holy Dice Roll, should all get equal billing in the how life began best guesses and wishes class . .. most call mythology.

I'm not sure your using the words correctly.

Then, you should reread them until reading comprehension catches up.

Well I don't know about your understanding of science, but perhaps then the problem for me that you seem to be talking as if hypothesis and myth have the same meaning.

Not the same meaning, but an unproven hypothesis is not more valuable or factual than any other unproven hypothesis until such a time as it becomes a proven hypothesis. I believe I could make you grow a pair of big red zits on your forehead, positioned just like Loki horns, with the power of my mind. . . . . and zap! They aren't there yet are they? It is not proven that I can do that. It isn't exactly dis-proven either though. . .

I'm not even sure if hypothesis is the right word for abiogenesis, because from my understand alot of experiments, etc, have been done to try to show that it is possible.

I could do a lot of experiments to try and form zits on someones forehead through brain waves, but it isn't anything but an unproven hypothesis until I. . . not only succeed, but can replicate the results. That is science.

 

[morningstar2651]

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) - YouTube

 

[mathetes123]

I wasn't quite sure how to word this question. I was originally going to call it "Is refusing to teach children evolution child abuse?" but that sounded a little over-dramatic.

I also wondered whether the trouble lies with teaching them creationism, rather than not teaching them evolution.

Should teaching evolution be limited to schools? Are parents required to teach their children about evolution too?

I would choose other if it was an option.

I don't have a problem with evolution and creationism being taught, with allowance made for presenting the pros and cons of each. As it is, creationism is taught as fact with no allowance made for the numerous problems with the theory.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) - YouTube

Yeah, K. .. . wrong debate. We aren't talking about why the myths we don't like are bad. We are apparently talking about which myths should be included (or not) in science class.

 

[Tomk80]

What is a basic principle, and why should everyone be exposed to it?

Our school system is divided in a number of ways. 60% of kids is in the "please just let me out to get a job already" education track. 20% is on the "I wanna learn some more before going for a fancier job, but nothing too fancy". 20% is on the "I wanna go to university" track.

Of the "I wanna go to university" track, about half is in the exact sciences track. That was my class. We got the most basic of introductions into quantum physics, what could be called a basic principle of the knowledge humans have acquired. No math or anything, just a bit of wave/particle duality, particle in a box, etc. Most people in my class absolutely hated it, barely managed to remember enough factoids to pass the exams, and when I see them they still reminiscence about how much they hate quantum physics and of how little they remember from it (almost boasting).

Those people are now medical doctors and structural engineers. Smart people.

Something tells me that forcing the basics of quantum mechanics on someone who knew that she wanted to be a hairdresser since she was 8, wouldn't have ended much better.

Up to I was 14 I wanted to be a police man. Then I got introduced to interesting stuff in physics, chemistry and biology in high school. Your proposal would work if kids would know from an early age what they wanted to do, and exposure to other subjects would be incapable of changing their mind on that. Both assumptions are false.

Then there is the fact that a broad knowledge base helps us at least a little bit in following the news and current events a little bit better. Even if someone doesn't remember the specifics anymore, they still vaguely remember some of the stuff from high school, making it easier to understand later in life if they are confronted with it again through random channels, such as newspapers or television programs.

Furthermore, there is the point of learning kids stuff for the sake of learning. Studying is something you have to learn, studying is something you have to practice. For that, you need to expose kids to different topics, some of which they might like and others they might hate, and force them learn about them. Will they remember them later. Possibly not. But they will have acquired strategies to learn new stuff. And that will stay with them.

 

[Tomk80]

Yeah, K. .. . wrong debate. We aren't talking about why the myths we don't like are bad. We are apparently talking about which myths should be included (or not) in science class.

Now you're just being silly, aren't you? Even if you think evolution is not true, it is still a scientific theory. Not a myth.

 

[carole2u]

I wasn't quite sure how to word this question. I was originally going to call it "Is refusing to teach children evolution child abuse?" but that sounded a little over-dramatic.

I also wondered whether the trouble lies with teaching them creationism, rather than not teaching them evolution.

Should teaching evolution be limited to schools? Are parents required to teach their children about evolution too?

I think since creationism is the explanation for the origin of life for most people of the Christian faith that those who believe this, as I do, should teach and relate this belief to their children themselves. I would also like to see it offered as an elective taught by those who also share this belief.
At the same time, I realize science is valuable when educating our children but since science cannot prove evolution as fact of our origin, that this should also be offered as an elective to whomever wishes to learn this theory or who holds belief in it. I have no problem with kids being taught adaptation to environment as I believe this is established as fact

 

[Tomk80]

I think since creationism is the explanation for the origin of life for most people of the Christian faith that those who believe this, as I do, should teach and relate this belief to their children themselves. I would also like to see it offered as an elective taught by those who also share this belief.
At the same time, I realize science is valuable when educating our children but since science cannot prove evolution as fact of our origin, that this should also be offered as an elective to whomever wishes to learn this theory or who holds belief in it. I have no problem with kids being taught adaptation to environment as I believe this is established as fact

The bolded part. Do you realize that for anyone who knows anything about science, the part I bolded is a strong indication that you have no clue what you are talking about when talking about the theory of evolution?

 

[Glas Ridire]

Now you're just being silly, aren't you? Even if you think evolution is not true, it is still a scientific theory. Not a myth.

Regardless of whether I think it is true or not (I haven't disclosed my views in this thread, but you can find them in my profile) . . . we can pretty much dress any myth up as science and discard the rest can't we? What is proven. . . and the pursuit of knowledge thereof, is science. Origin of life myths without supporting data are not science.

Myth - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

Huh. . . . this is unlike evolution as presented by Carl Sagan in what way? The concept has been around for about 100 years. . . . I think that kinda fits traditional. Ostensibly historical events, yup . . . to explain natural phenomenon, well there ya have it. Shake your fist at Merriam Webster if it makes you happy, but words have meanings & we don't always have to like their implications.

 

[carole2u]

The bolded part. Do you realize that for anyone who knows anything about science, the part I bolded is a strong indication that you have no clue what you are talking about when talking about the theory of evolution?

As per your statement, I realize that is what YOU believe about me. Science isn't just one theory or one set of facts, excepting some while discounting others, is what people do. LOL, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
If you're looking for a "newbie creationist" to argue with or try and talk down to, it isn't me. Get yourself a new argument cause that one is way over used.