Should Schools be Required to Teach Evolution?

[Mystman]

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Do you think that people shouldn't receive a basic, comprehensive curriculum in high school intended to teach the basics of science? Evolution is part of the basics of science.

Do you think the purpose of high school is not to educate, but rather to prepare someone for a job?

A large number of students don't want to know the basics of science. Knowing some basics can safe their life (reproductive biology, e=0.5mv^2, why you shouldn't extinguish burning oil using water, etc) or is likely to be useful otherwise, so forcing them to learn it could be justified.

Forcing a bunch of bored 15 year olds to learn stuff that they don't want to learn and are never going to use is stupid. It's annoying for the students, it's annoying for the teachers, it's annoying for the students who do find the subject interesting but are instead fed the idiot-proof version, or forced to endure the moronic questions of his classmates who talked through half the lecture, etc etc.

edit: although I do have to ask: why do you mean with "teaching evolution"? Giving the 2-sentence explanation of the concept (descent with modification, natural selection), or spending half an hour or more on molecular specifics, giving examples, giving evidence, etc etc. The 2-sentence explanation is good to know (but again: if a student wants to know what the fuss is about, he could just google it), the half hour lecture should really only be reserved for people who want to hear it.

 

[morningstar2651]

A large number of students don't want to know the basics of science. Knowing some basics can safe their life (reproductive biology, e=0.5mv^2, why you shouldn't extinguish burning oil using water, etc) or is likely to be useful otherwise, so forcing them to learn it could be justified.

Forcing a bunch of bored 15 year olds to learn stuff that they don't want to learn and are never going to use is stupid. It's annoying for the students, it's annoying for the teachers, it's annoying for the students who do find the subject interesting but are instead fed the idiot-proof version, or forced to endure the moronic questions of his classmates who talked through half the lecture, etc etc.

edit: although I do have to ask: why do you mean with "teaching evolution"? Giving the 2-sentence explanation of the concept (descent with modification, natural selection), or spending half an hour or more on molecular specifics, giving examples, giving evidence, etc etc. The 2-sentence explanation is good to know (but again: if a student wants to know what the fuss is about, he could just google it), the half hour lecture should really only be reserved for people who want to hear it.

Should we teach children only what they want to know?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

A large number of students don't want to know the basics of science. Knowing some basics can safe their life (reproductive biology, e=0.5mv^2, why you shouldn't extinguish burning oil using water, etc) or is likely to be useful otherwise, so forcing them to learn it could be justified.

Teaching science is not always about teaching facts, it's also about teaching critical thinking. Critical thinking is useful in all facets of life. Evolution is one way to introducing a conceptual framework to material that can be otherwise dull (the nitpicky facts of intro to biology).

Even if something is not "useful" in your later career, is that reason enough not to learn it? I'm not going to use literature or history much in my profession, but I still got a lot out of my literature and history classes (despite having little interest in them before taking them.)

Forcing a bunch of bored 15 year olds to learn stuff that they don't want to learn and are never going to use is stupid.

Then let's just dispense with the majority of schooling, then. Forcing a bunch of bored 15 year olds to learn about history, ancient literature, social studies, algebra, and physical sciences must be stupid too!

It's annoying for the students, it's annoying for the teachers, it's annoying for the students who do find the subject interesting but are instead fed the idiot-proof version, or forced to endure the moronic questions of his classmates who talked through half the lecture, etc etc.

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.

And as an aside, we really should be improving teacher pay and prestige in the US. I'm sure we all know how a great, interactive, and imaginative teacher can drastically liven up a subject.

edit: although I do have to ask: why do you mean with "teaching evolution"? Giving the 2-sentence explanation of the concept (descent with modification, natural selection), or spending half an hour or more on molecular specifics, giving examples, giving evidence, etc etc. The 2-sentence explanation is good to know (but again: if a student wants to know what the fuss is about, he could just google it), the half hour lecture should really only be reserved for people who want to hear it.

A 2-sentence explanation is not enough. Evolution should be brought up formally early in a basic biology course, and permeate the entirety of it. Even approaching it from the historical perspective, as in, reliving the reasoning that Darwin and Wallace used in combination with Malthus' writings would be an excellent way to teach critical thinking and evolution at the same time.

Maybe I over-estimate the capacity of 16 year olds, who knows. But as someone who wants to improve the communication of science to the general public, I see the improvement of science being taught in high school as an important step. Biology being taught without a strong presentation of evolutionary principles is doomed to be confusing, pointless, and irrelevant.

 

[Jade Margery]

If a school is to teach either, it should be only presented in whatever segments they do on mythology. I don't intend to argue for or against either, I have my own beliefs . . . but in the context of public school education, "How the world began" is a religious discussion & doesn't have a place outside units on Hindu, Egyptian, Greek, Japanese, Etc . . .. creation myths. I don't believe I should be able to force other people's children to learn about the creation myth I believe in, and I don't think people with other favorite creation myths should be able to impose them on my children. It doesn't make sense, the people who scream and holler for separation of church and State when someone else wants a different myth presented and turn around and demand theirs in the curriculum.

But I am the same guy who says both sides are wrong on gay marriage. . . . civil unions should be civil, marriage should be up to what ever denomination/ religion or lack thereof one believes in. Actual separation of church and State, instead of separation of churches I disagree with and State. Let atheists teach their kids evolution, let fundamentalist teach creationism. . . . at the end of the day, none of us were there, it doesn't change the truth of what is around us and forcing ideology through manipulating school curriculum is dirty and low regardless of how true or how sure one is right, one may be.

Glas, the difference is that evolution is not a mythology. It's also not about how life or the world started--that's a common misconception. It's about an on-going, observable process in the natural world that has not only been tested and proven to exist, but is also the foundation of much of modern biology without which many medical treatments would never have been discovered. Understanding the theory of evolution and incorporating it into the scientific world has directly benefited mankind. The same cannot be said for the theory of creationism.

As another poster pointed out, it is like saying that the Aristotelian idea of the four elements and the periodic table of elements have equal validity and therefore neither of them should be taught in school, only by parents. The former is an idea based on an ancient peoples' very limited knowledge of the natural world, while the latter is actually useful in understanding chemical reactions. If we eliminated the periodic table from our national curriculum because some parents believe that only earth, fire, water, and air exist, in fifteen years our scientific contributions to the world would tank and we would be left way behind by all the other civilized countries... as is happening now when you compare the scientific knowledge and usefulness of graduates from states where religious ideas are taught to those where scientific facts take precedence. I won't go so far as to call it child abuse, but it does put the children of those areas at a distinct disadvantage compared to others who receive a more rounded education.

 

[Gadarene]

"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Asimov

 

[Glas Ridire]

Glas, the difference is that evolution is not a mythology. It's also not about how life or the world started--that's a common misconception.

No. Where have you seen it taught sans puddle of goo turning into life . . . leading to mud skippers leading to man? Not that it couldn't be, just that it isn't.

It's about an on-going, observable process in the natural world that has not only been tested and proven to exist, but is also the foundation of much of modern biology without which many medical treatments would never have been discovered.

Well, no. What you are referring to is science. The directly provable stuff is indeed science and worthy of being taught. The stuff extrapolated from the directly provable and projected on a VAST timeline to prove an atheistic creation myth is. . . not suitable for being taught as science. It is okay to admit we don't know some things, wise even. We don't know how life began . . . teaching a theory and presenting it as science is just teaching atheistic religious doctrine under the guise of science all the while screaming "church and state, church and state" anytime anybody else wants their equally unprovable theory to get equal billing. The parts that are science . . . . go ahead and teach in science class. I don't really want "the world being held up by a dude" taught in science class either. Lets let atheists get equal billing when class studies mythologies of the world.

Understanding the theory of evolution and incorporating it into the scientific world has directly benefited mankind.

I don't believe one has to believe atheistic creation myths to do science.

 

[AceHero]

What´s there to teach about creationism, anyway? Won´t take more than 2 minutes.

Proponents feel that there's a ton of science behind it. They dress it up to look very authoritative when it's not.

A large number of students don't want to know the basics of science. Knowing some basics can safe their life (reproductive biology, e=0.5mv^2, why you shouldn't extinguish burning oil using water, etc) or is likely to be useful otherwise, so forcing them to learn it could be justified.

Forcing a bunch of bored 15 year olds to learn stuff that they don't want to learn and are never going to use is stupid. It's annoying for the students, it's annoying for the teachers, it's annoying for the students who do find the subject interesting but are instead fed the idiot-proof version, or forced to endure the moronic questions of his classmates who talked through half the lecture, etc etc.

edit: although I do have to ask: why do you mean with "teaching evolution"? Giving the 2-sentence explanation of the concept (descent with modification, natural selection), or spending half an hour or more on molecular specifics, giving examples, giving evidence, etc etc. The 2-sentence explanation is good to know (but again: if a student wants to know what the fuss is about, he could just google it), the half hour lecture should really only be reserved for people who want to hear it.

Should we teach children only what they want to know?

Or what their parents only want them to know.

 

[mpok1519]

This has to be some of the most radical and misguided perceptions of how biology functions. Can you explain the mechanics of evolution?

No. Where have you seen it taught sans puddle of goo turning into life . . . leading to mud skippers leading to man? Not that it couldn't be, just that it isn't.

Well, no. What you are referring to is science. The directly provable stuff is indeed science and worthy of being taught. The stuff extrapolated from the directly provable and projected on a VAST timeline to prove an atheistic creation myth is. . . not suitable for being taught as science. It is okay to admit we don't know some things, wise even. We don't know how life began . . . teaching a theory and presenting it as science is just teaching atheistic religious doctrine under the guise of science all the while screaming "church and state, church and state" anytime anybody else wants their equally unprovable theory to get equal billing. The parts that are science . . . . go ahead and teach in science class. I don't really want "the world being held up by a dude" taught in science class either. Lets let atheists get equal billing when class studies mythologies of the world.


I don't believe one has to believe atheistic creation myths to do science.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Huh, most have voted for option two so far. I was expecting more creationists.

A child who is raised as a creationists will probably be just as happy in life as a child who is raised as an evolutionist. But a generation of kids who are raised as creationists (with the accompanying attitude towards "facts" and "science" and "logic") will probably be much less useful to a society than a generation of kids who are raised as evolutionists (or with a proper scientific mindset

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?

Maybe I over-estimate the capacity of 16 year olds, who knows. But as someone who wants to improve the communication of science to the general public, I see the improvement of science being taught in high school as an important step. Biology being taught without a strong presentation of evolutionary principles is doomed to be confusing, pointless, and irrelevant.

The majority of us don't use our understanding of evolution in everyday life. I can't remember the last time my interest in Australopithecine paleoneurology helped pay for my groceries.

Most aspects of biology can be taught without having any prior knowledge of evolution. We don't really need to understand evolution to understand the function of mitochrondria or how the nervous system works. Are creationist doctors more incompetent than evolutionist doctors?

As for creationism - it doesn't belong in either Religious Studies or History. It doesn't belong anywhere. It's a recent movement and most major churches don't endorse it.

 

[Glas Ridire]

This has to be some of the most radical and misguided perceptions of how biology functions. Can you explain the mechanics of evolution?

What part of evolution don't you understand?

 

[mpok1519]

What part of evolution don't you understand?

There are many aspects I have minimal grasp on, but I do understand the concepts of speciation, genetic flow, genetic drift and genetic mutation.

Do you understand these concepts?

 

[morningstar2651]

No. Where have you seen it taught sans puddle of goo turning into life . . . leading to mud skippers leading to man? Not that it couldn't be, just that it isn't.

Well, no. What you are referring to is science. The directly provable stuff is indeed science and worthy of being taught. The stuff extrapolated from the directly provable and projected on a VAST timeline to prove an atheistic creation myth is. . . not suitable for being taught as science. It is okay to admit we don't know some things, wise even. We don't know how life began . . . teaching a theory and presenting it as science is just teaching atheistic religious doctrine under the guise of science all the while screaming "church and state, church and state" anytime anybody else wants their equally unprovable theory to get equal billing. The parts that are science . . . . go ahead and teach in science class. I don't really want "the world being held up by a dude" taught in science class either. Lets let atheists get equal billing when class studies mythologies of the world.


I don't believe one has to believe atheistic creation myths to do science.

You're confusing abiogenesis and evolution. They are 2 different things.

Evolution is fundamental to the teaching of biology. Abiogenesis is not.
Evolution is an ongoing observable process. Abiogenesis is not.

You don't need to accept abiogenesis as the origin of life to accept that evolution happens.

 

[Glas Ridire]

You're confusing

Stop right there. You are already off track. I already stated that abiogenesis ("atheists creation myth" as I called it) is often (almost uniformly) taught as an integral part of evolution & I have no problem with the scientifically verifiable being taught as science . . . but do believe the creation myth portion should be left to "the study of cultures and mythologies".

abiogenesis and evolution. They are 2 different things.

Which are almost uniformly taught as one thing, which is what my comments have been directed against. . .. leave the science in the science book and the mythology in the mythology book & carry on.

Evolution is fundamental to the teaching of biology. Abiogenesis is not. Evolution is an ongoing observable process. Abiogenesis is not.

You don't need to accept abiogenesis as the origin of life to accept that evolution happens.

Why yes, I agree. I think they should be taught in/as separate subjects . . . . science in science class, mythology in mythology class. But WAY too often, they aren't & I think this is what a lot of fundamentalists argue against, poorly. In protest to abiogenesis, fundamentalist say "Whoa! no evolution in schools, its got atheist creation myth in it" and the Atheists say "But it is science, we have to teach it" and much like abortion, gay marriage and a myriad other topics that get batted back and forth endlessly. . . it only gets nowhere if both sides refuse to separate church and state. Fundamentalists want their creation myth taught alongside abiogenesis and in doing so, bark up the wrong tree. Atheists demand abiogenesis be presented as an integral part of biology science and in doing so contribute to a needless conflict. Both sides are in the wrong. Both sides should pull their creation myths out of the science dept.

 

[morningstar2651]

Stop right there. You are already off track. I already stated that abiogenesis ("atheists creation myth" as I called it) is often (almost uniformly) taught as an integral part of evolution & I have no problem with the scientifically verifiable being taught as science . . . but do believe the creation myth portion should be left to "the study of cultures and mythologies".


Which are almost uniformly taught as one thing, which is what my comments have been directed against. . .. leave the science in the science book and the mythology in the mythology book & carry on.

Why yes, I agree. I think they should be taught in/as separate subjects . . . . science in science class, mythology in mythology class. But WAY too often, they aren't & I think this is what a lot of fundamentalists argue against, poorly. In protest to abiogenesis, fundamentalist say "Whoa! no evolution in schools, its got atheist creation myth in it" and the Atheists say "But it is science, we have to teach it" and much like abortion, gay marriage and a myriad other topics that get batted back and forth endlessly. . . it only gets nowhere if both sides refuse to separate church and state. Fundamentalists want their creation myth taught alongside abiogenesis and in doing so, bark up the wrong tree. Atheists demand abiogenesis be presented as an integral part of biology science and in doing so contribute to a needless conflict. Both sides are in the wrong. Both sides should pull their creation myths out of the science dept.

You're wrong. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution and isn't taught as being a fundamental part of evolution.

 

[Glas Ridire]

You're wrong. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution and isn't taught as being a fundamental part of evolution.

Yeah. . . . okay . . .. . for real man, I'm sorry . . . I believe you

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain . . ..

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The majority of us don't use our understanding of evolution in everyday life. I can't remember the last time my interest in Australopithecine paleoneurology helped pay for my groceries.

That is irrelevant to what should be taught in a broad, general knowledge educational curriculum. I don't use my knowledge of the Iliad every day but I'm glad I read it in high school. I do, however, take with me the lessons I learned from reading the Iliad, and many lessons can be gleaned from science as well (as well as a general appreciation for what 'life' means and how to think critically.)

Most aspects of biology can be taught without having any prior knowledge of evolution. We don't really need to understand evolution to understand the function of mitochrondria or how the nervous system works.

Seriously? Biology without evolution is mindless fact recall. "Why does our embryology develop this way?" "It just does!" Completely unsatisfying.

To your specific examples -- evolution has very important things to say about mitochondria and the nervous system. Neuroanatomy is a complete mystery if you seal off the evolutionary tie-ins!

Are creationist doctors more incompetent than evolutionist doctors?

Any doctor who is not scientifically literate is a technician at best. Sometimes you can get by on that (like if you're an orthopedic surgeon) but in many fields, it would be disastrous to ignore the evolutionary principles in medicine (hello to any doctor who uses antibiotics.)

As for creationism - it doesn't belong in either Religious Studies or History. It doesn't belong anywhere. It's a recent movement and most major churches don't endorse it.

Creation myths of all sorts belong in ancient history and/or literature classes. I took a great class in college on ancient epics that drew heavily on creation myths to shape an understanding of the authors (like Gilgamesh, and we even read a scholarly translation of Genesis.)

 

[Jade Margery]

No. Where have you seen it taught sans puddle of goo turning into life . . . leading to mud skippers leading to man? Not that it couldn't be, just that it isn't.

Um... my own high school? We started by studying genetics, dominant and recessive genes, then about tracing common characteristics through the fossil record to shared ancestors. At no point did my biology teacher say a 'puddle of goo' had anything to do with it. Nor did my anthropology professors in college when we studied the lineage of man, starting with our very early lemur-like ancestor, through the different unsuccessful branches that went extinct and the few that survived, slowly whittling down the diversity until only Homo Erectus remained and the last of the Neanderthals had passed. No puddles of goo necessary. You don't have to know where a road begins to recognize that you're moving on it.

When were you last in school to see how they were teaching it? Who told you they were teaching it that way?

Well, no. What you are referring to is science. The directly provable stuff is indeed science and worthy of being taught. The stuff extrapolated from the directly provable and projected on a VAST timeline to prove an atheistic creation myth is. . . not suitable for being taught as science. It is okay to admit we don't know some things, wise even. We don't know how life began . . . teaching a theory and presenting it as science is just teaching atheistic religious doctrine under the guise of science all the while screaming "church and state, church and state" anytime anybody else wants their equally unprovable theory to get equal billing. The parts that are science . . . . go ahead and teach in science class. I don't really want "the world being held up by a dude" taught in science class either. Lets let atheists get equal billing when class studies mythologies of the world.

I don't believe one has to believe atheistic creation myths to do science.

Seeing as how there aren't any atheistic creation myths, I'd have to agree with you. There are some scientific theories about what -could- have happened, based on the observable results of experiments that attempt to replicate the conditions found on pre-life earth, but if you ever listen to people talking about these theories, it will go something like this: the evidence SUGGESTS that this is what occurred, we don't know for sure but this looks like the MOST LIKELY answer right now, it may not have been exactly like this but this would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE etc. etc. etc.

No one is claiming facts where they don't exist, but when speaking of abiogenesis (the sludge-to-life idea you seem to be referring to) we do at least understand some of the mechanisms that could have brought it about, and we are able to admit that while a solid answer is not yet available, the search for the answer is ongoing. Acknowledging the limits of current knowledge, the questions that still need to be answered, and the progress that is being made towards attaining those answers, is just as much a part of scientific education as teaching 'facts'.

...teaching a theory and presenting it as science is just teaching atheistic religious doctrine...

Science is nothing BUT theories. Pretty much every scientific fact is just 'this is our best understanding right now'. They are all subject to change when new evidence arrives--Gad's Asimov quote about the shape of the earth is a fine illustration of that.

For example, it used to be thought that whatever happened to you in your life didn't have any effect on the genetics of your children. Cut off a mouse's tail, and its offspring will not go tail-less. This was a fine 'fact' and was taught and absorbed for years, until someone discovered that what you do in life does affect the genes of your children, but just in very subtle ways that we had never had the ability to detect before. (Read up on epigenetics if you'd like to know more about that, it's pretty fascinating stuff.)

Clearly what we had learned before wasn't true, but it was true enough that the people who learned it were able to become geneticists who could build on the knowledge that came before them to discover something that was even more true. Does that mean they never should have been taught about genetics in the first place? Of course not.


And for cryin' out loud, there's no such thing as 'atheist religious doctrine'. Atheists don't have a unifying dogma, or mythology, or culture. Atheists exist all over the world--some are spiritual, others are not, some believe in stuff without evidence (alien visitors, Bigfoot), some don't, some have a good grasp of science, others are ignorant and fine with being that way. Atheism isn't a religion and there's no such thing as atheistic doctrine. Sheesh.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well, no. What you are referring to is science. The directly provable stuff is indeed science and worthy of being taught. The stuff extrapolated from the directly provable and projected on a VAST timeline to prove an atheistic creation myth is. . . not suitable for being taught as science.

No, a atheistic creation myth wouldn't be science. None spring to mind however.

It is okay to admit we don't know some things, wise even.

Correct.

We don't know how life began . . . teaching a theory and presenting it as science is just teaching atheistic religious doctrine under the guise of science all the while screaming "church and state, church and state" anytime anybody else wants their equally unprovable theory to get equal billing.

Well if there were no evidence I would agree. That is why scientists who understand the evidence should get to choose what goes into a science class.

The parts that are science . . . . go ahead and teach in science class. I don't really want "the world being held up by a dude" taught in science class either. Lets let atheists get equal billing when class studies mythologies of the world.

Exactly, teach the science... evolution.

I don't believe one has to believe atheistic creation myths to do science.

There aren't any atheist creation myths taught in school.

Stop right there. You are already off track. I already stated that abiogenesis ("atheists creation myth" as I called it) is often (almost uniformly) taught as an integral part of evolution & I have no problem with the scientifically verifiable being taught as science . . . but do believe the creation myth portion should be left to "the study of cultures and mythologies".

Well if there isn't evidence for abiogenesis doesn't have evidence then it shouldn't be taught as fact. Scientists know the evidence so they get to advise on what should be taught.

. . . it only gets nowhere if both sides refuse to separate church and state. Fundamentalists want their creation myth taught alongside abiogenesis and in doing so, bark up the wrong tree. Atheists demand abiogenesis be presented as an integral part of biology science and in doing so contribute to a needless conflict. Both sides are in the wrong. Both sides should pull their creation myths out of the science dept.

It seems to me that you tend to take some wishy washy approach to the truth. You seem to like criticising both sides and take a moderate middle ground stance. However open minded that might seem to some, one can't assume the truth is the middle ground. 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.

Sorry

 

[Cuddles333]

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.

 

[pointman7a]

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?

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.