I meandered onto this thread and breezily answered the question based on the header, and my first answer was incomplete, and so I want to add onto it here before addressing your questions in the quotes below. I really should have explained that much of what I’ve learned about evolution has been taught outside of classrooms, but significantly influenced my understanding of it in academic settings. As mentioned previously, I first learned the meaning of evolution when Dr. Francis Collins spoke about theistic evolution at my church when I was eight, and that sermon helped to instill the belief that science and religion can have a positive and meaningful relationship. I first learned evolution from a secular perspective that same year when we were in Sydney and ducked into the Australian Museum on an oppressively hot day to escape the heat, and then ended up spending hours there taking in the exhibitions. They really explained evolution and the scientific beliefs regarding the origins of life in an engaging way that made it interesting and simple for my brothers and me to understand. I lived in Washington, DC from ages five through twelve, and the Smithsonian museums were like huge classrooms to me in a way. I was there all the time with my family, on field-trips, at their summer camps, and so forth, and after the experience in Sydney I took more interest in the the National Natural History Museum. My 7th grade science class had a special tour of the Hall of Human Origins just after it was opened in 2010, and then had several lessons based on the educational program guides the museum provides teachers. My family and I also attended their public programs. This exhibit and all the related lessons, seminars, and events was enriching and significant in building up my foundational understanding of both the scientific hypotheses of the origins of life itself and the emergence and essence of humanity. Books I've read by Dr. Collins, Matt Ridley, Neil Shubin, and Jared Diamond have also been very educational.
In your education so far, did any of your professors attribute the creation of life (not abiogenesis) from one single life form from long long ago, to the complexity and variety of life we observe today to anything but solely naturalistic processes?
Yes. When we lived in DC I went to the National Cathedral School, which is an Episcopalian all-girls school affiliated with The National Cathedral, and my 7th grade science teacher shared her own beliefs about God being the creator of life. We also discussed the various belief systems about the origins of life based on what was taught in the lesson plans from the Smithsonian, and girls shared our own ideas. The theory of evolution wasn’t typically taught in the 7th grade, but we were taking advantage of the special exhibition, and it was a lively, fun way to end the school year. My family moved to LA that summer and I’ve attended a 7-12 private independent school (not affiliated with any religion) ever since. Though we touched upon evolution and the origins of life at NCS, my academic education on evolution really began in 9th grade biology. We learned that evolution theory is about how life changed after its origin, and so we never studied the hypotheses on the origins of life in that class. When you previously asked if all teachings relating the origins of life were attributed to a naturalistic process, I was really extrapolating beyond what’s actually been taught in my science classes that have taught evolution. Based upon my experiences at the museum exhibitions regarding the origins of life and the books I've read I built a bridge in my mind between that and lessons in classes and wrote my response. I sort of feel like you manipulated my response to suit your agenda, and so I’m trying to use more care now.
One chapter in my 10th grade AP Environmental Science class had a component relating to the origins of life. In the classroom we solely focused on the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological hypotheses. As mentioned previously, my teacher never discussed the supernatural while teaching natural evolution and abiogenesis but certainly didn’t dissuade us from having any personal beliefs in a deity being responsible for the creation of life. There was no litmus test. I just looked again and the textbook does very briefly explain the Theory of Special Creation (the ones ascribed to by most world religions), Theory of Spontaneous Generation, the Theory of Catastrophism, and the Cosmozoic Theory. It’s a digital textbook (on an iPad) and you can click on links to find more information if you choose. The same textbook is used at most public schools as well as at other private schools.
This past year I took Pharmacology and we only studied evolution in relation to pharmacological / biomedical research, like viral evolution for viral oncology. Once again we never studied the origins of life. I’ve only truly been taught that, beyond just that one APES component, in the current class I’m taking at UCLA. It hasn’t been taught as conclusive, inconvertible fact, but was phrased as “why do we
think life originally evolved from non-living materials on this planet?” Then we discussed how that might have occurred. We’ve also learned why creationism is not a
scientific alternative to evolution. The word scientific is a very important qualifier. It leaves the doors to theological alternatives open for us to enter through and explore if we choose. Though I and other high schoolers have been permitted to take this class, it’s a class for college students and taught on UCLA’s campus. It’s not a requirement for any high school student, and our parents pay for the tuition. So it's not like we're "kiddos" less experienced with critical independent thinking forced into this class.
The class at my school that devotes the most time to teaching evolution and the origins of life is AP Biology, but I’m taking AP Physics this upcoming year. My brother took AP Biology at St. Alban’s, which is the all-boys brother school to NCS, and out of curiosity I asked him your question about “atheistic creationism.” It is a Christian school, and yet they use the same textbook by Pearson that we have at my school, and they taught the class from the same secular perspective as it's taught at the majority of schools whether they be public, private, parochial, online, or brick and mortar. Whereas my 7th grade teacher did share her Christian views in class, he said his science teachers at St. Albans did not. They just focused on teaching science lessons based on the most substantiated, reputable scientific evidence. He said it seems like you’re making secularism, naturalism, and atheism synonymous with one another when they are not. Going by your unique definition, St. Alban’s, a Christian school that is on the same grounds at the THE National Cathedral, is teaching atheism by teaching evolution and hypotheses on the origins of life the way we're taught it at my school (i.e., solely naturalistic), when they most assuredly are not. They just teach science in science classes, theology in religion classes, and humanity in history and philosophy classes. I don’t know how familiar you are with AP classes, but they are college-level classes you take in high school, and at the end of the year everyone takes a standardized exam to potentially earn college credit based on your score. The College Board suggests the curriculum for the classes. I have friends at NCS, at Episcopal and Catholic schools here in LA, and at public schools who've taken the same AP classes I have and my brother has, and the classes are taught similarly. It's quite possible that people have disagreed with the material taught in their AP and other science classes. The AP exam and the majority of other tests aren't about an affirmation of agreement but a demonstration of mastery of the material that was taught. I mean, in my World Religions class I had tests relating to Islamic doctrine, Jainism, Buddhism, and so forth, and the tests were not about me believing in those religions but in showing that I learned what was taught. Simple as that.
This science-based naturalistic perspective, was it presenting humanity, for example, as anything other than a life form created entirely, solely, by naturalistic mechanisms?
We've never specifically, directly studied the creation of humanity in any science class besides the discussions based on the Smithsonian material in the 7th grade. As explained above, we've studied hypotheses about the origins of life - not humanity - in some classes and then how humans evolved and are still evolving in others, but it hasn't been one flowing study about the origin of humanity in my classes so far.
I understand that God wasn't specifically credited or denied in your science class. It would be very surprising if that happened. My questions are concerning the teaching as a fact, without question, that all of life we observe today is solely due to naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
Nope. My teachers and my current professor have stated that there is so much about the origins of life that scientists do not conclusively know, so there are mannnnnnnnnny open questions. The evidence about the evolution of life after its inception is substantial, but our knowledge of it will continue to evolve. They’ve said that the mechanism by which life began on Earth isn’t known; it’s hypothesized. My dad is an oncologist and has said that though they have made significant strides in understanding the 200+ diseases that are cancer in modern medicine, so much of it still unknown, which the primary reason a cure has remained elusive. If the best and the brightest doctors and researches around the world are unable to conclusively know everything about cancer because of its complexity, it’s understandable to me there aren’t categorical answers about the origins of life. "We don't know, but this is what we think / believe based on this evidence" is more honest to me than a claim about an incontrovertible scientific truth that lacks the scientific evidence to substantiate it.
Yes, it's our personal choice as to our belief or disbelief in God. And I couldn't agree more that science classes need to rely on scientific evidence.
I believe most science classes do rely upon scientific evidence. I know that college professors review the textbooks most frequently used in the high school classes of their applicants and students to assess their quality and assure we've received the necessary preparation for those subjects at the college level. If parents or students feel like their education is lacking they can take the initiative to add supplementary lessons at home. I've read about theistic evolution on my own just by checking out Dr. Collins books and getting suggestions for others on Goodreads. I don't want or need it to be taught at school. I’m about to fall asleep now but if you’re interested I can share with you a bit later on about two friends who’ve taken science classes based on A Beka and Apologia textbooks and then explain why their experiences have made me so grateful I am taking straightforward, uncluttered, evidence-based science classes. I like that what I've been taught in my science classes matches up with what is taught in the natural history museums we've been to around the world, regardless of the dominant religious and political ideologies of the country where they're located.
OK. So now that I've hopefully answered your questions sufficiently, I have a question for you! If YOU were in charge of setting standards for science education in high schools what would you want to be taught, and why? Could you please just give a clear explanation without doublespeak? I’m sorry if this is a repetitive question. I haven’t read through all the threads and posts here. And my gosh, I’m sorry this post is so absurdly long and rambly. Peeps, my apologies for your sore eyes and for taking up so much space. I am sunburned and can’t sleep so I just typed away. Oh geez. If anyone actually reads all of this, thank youuuuu. Oh, and I hope this actually made sense and isn't riddled with typos. It's after 3AM here and my brain started to fall asleep an hour ago.
