Should Schools Teach Evolution as Fact?

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

I don't think my BIO II book had anything about creationism in it. My teacher made one passing comment about it though. She said that the "suits" asked her to talk about creationism. She said "The theory of creationism is simple, god did it. Any questions?" Then we watched the movie about the John Scopes monkey trial to learn a little more about it >=D

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, I am absolutely 100% against teaching such unproven "theories."

I mean, this whole "theory of gravity" religion is utter nonsense. As if they expect us to accept Newton's heresy about stuff "magically" being pulled by some invisible "force" (note the absence of God in the language!) towards the center of the Earth (to Hell, folks!) As an educator, I feel--

What? Nobody has a problem with gravity? Oops, my bad, I misread the question..

*Ahem* As I was saying, this made-up "theory of relativity" is the product of pure fantasy. How can anyone even think about the "speed" of light without actually ever travelling that fast to see for themselves? Besides, we all know that God is light, and He can go a lot faster that 186,000 miles per second. This is simply an Atheistic--

Hmmm? People accept the theory of relativity? Sorry, I misread the question again.

Mathematics is a tool of the devil! They expect us to believe that numbers spontaneously grow, shrink, and "change" into other numbers over time is baloney. And let's not forget geometry! Have you ever actually seen a "straight line" stretching on to infinity? Of course not! There are no straight lines! Show me one! I mean, your mathematical bias--

Eh? Nobody protests math taught as fact? Darn, it's hard to keep all these "theories" straight in school. Everyone kept telling me they were facts...

Um... what was the question again?

 

[tcampen]

I find it interesting that this debate totally excludes theories other than evolution or creationism. The special creation story found in Genesis is certainly not the only special creation story in the world. Most all the world's major religions have a creation story. If you teach one, you have to teach them all, I suppose.

The is also the idea that life originated on earth from space, perhaps from Mars (tho I recognize how life began is not what evolution addresses.) Martian rocks found in Antartica that are billions of years old show evidence that could be early life forms. It really isn't a simple "two sides of the coin" issue as it is so often presented, nor is the idea that a problem with one theory is in any way support for the other.

My high school biology teacher was a Christian, but dutifully taught evolution. We didn't learn about non-scientific theories, like creationism, in science classes. Why would we? Later, I took evolution in college and learned even more. The fundamental christian persecution of the evolutionists harkens back to the Church's persecution of Galileo for claiming the Earth actually goes around the sun, rather than the other way around. Geeesh. Leave science to science and religion to religion. They each have enough to worry about on their own.

 

[Brimshack]

Lest anyone think that sounds far fetched…

Where I teach, both evolution and the Navajo emergence narrative are covered in several different classes. Many of my students believe the latter quite literally; others adopt a metaphorical approach to the emergence narrative and a literal interpretation of evolution. Several of the teachers in the Navajo studies department fuse the two, but others teach only the emergence narrative.

The Bearing Straits theory adds another twist; the majority of my students completely reject it. I have so far gotten by with teaching the theory, and expecting them to demonstrate understanding of it. If they can show me that much, they get the grade, even if they add comments to the effect that such theories are nonsense made up by white people for political reasons.

 

[wblastyn]

My high school biology teacher was a Christian, but dutifully taught evolution. We didn't learn about non-scientific theories, like creationism, in science classes. Why would we? Later, I took evolution in college and learned even more. The fundamental christian persecution of the evolutionists harkens back to the Church's persecution of Galileo for claiming the Earth actually goes around the sun, rather than the other way around. Geeesh. Leave science to science and religion to religion. They each have enough to worry about on their own.

Actually the Galileo thing is a myth, the reason the church had a problem with him was because he was attacking anyone who did not accept his theory without considering it could be wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

Uum , doesnt "Theory of" already kinda show thats its not a 100% fact?

And about how it really happened , so far you haven't shown any decent evidence for your claims.

Have you read Origin of the Species at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/?

Have you searched PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi with the term "evolution"?

Do both and then try that comment about "decent evidence".

As to fact and theory. Try following Eugenie Scott's explanation. If you have questions then, ASK!

" What is a "fact" and what is a "theory?" A fact is a confirmed observation. For example, it is a confirmed observation that every tetrapod known has, at some stage of its life, a humerus, a radius and ulna, and a distal cluster of bones corresponding to carpals, metacarpals and phalanges. ... In science, facts, like theories, may change: it was once a fact (for about 10 years) that Homo sapiens had 48 chromosomes. But other observations were confirmed and explanations found for the erroneous observations, and now we know that there are 46. In general, though, in science we treat facts as statements we don't need to test and question anymore, but rather can use as givens to build more complex understandings. A theory, in science, is a logical construct of facts and hypotheses that attempts to explain a natural phenomenon. It is an explanation, not a guess or hunch that one can casually disregard. ... Theories explain facts, but the general public doesn't know that.
Concerning evolution, then, what's a fact and what's a theory? One hears from many scientists, "Evolution is FACT!!!" The meaning here is that evolution, the "what happened;' is so well supported that we don't argue about it, any more than we argue about heliocentrism versus geocen trism. We accept that change through time happened, and go on to try to explain how. What we mean and what is heard is often different, however. What the public often hears when scientists say "Evolution is FACT!" is that we treat evolution as unchallengeable dogma, which it isn't.
We must learn to present evolution not as "a fact" in this dogmatic sense, but "matter of factly," as we would present heliocentrism and gravitation. Most people consider heliocentrism and gravitation as "facts", but they are not "facts" in my definition of "confirmed observations." Instead, they are powerful inferences from many observations, which are not in themselves questioned, but used to build more detailed understandings.
From the standpoint of philosophy of science, the "facts of evolution" are things like the anatomical structural homologies such as the tetrapod forelimb, or the biochemical homologies of cross species protein and DNA comparisons, or the biogeographical distribution of plants and animals.The "facts of evolution" are observations, confirmed over and over, such as the presence and/or absence of particular fossils in particular strata of the geological column (one never finds mammals in the Devonian, for example). From these confirmed observations we develop an explanation, an inference, that what explains all of these facts is that species have had histories, and that descent with modification has taken place. Evolution is thus a theory, and one of the most powerful theories in science." EC Scott, Dealing with anti-evolutionism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 17: 24-28, July/August 1997.

 

[ifriit]

lucaspa, JaelsGod and I had that very conversation--read back through the thread, he didn't mean it that way.

 

[lucaspa]

Hmm.. whats funny about this topic is the choice of whether evolution or creation should be taught in schools. After my learning of the newly defined evolution theory... I beleive creation should be taught in schools and the process of small evolution, adaptation and natural selection should be taught.

"Creation"? Chud, evolution is just as much a theory of creation as is creationISM.

CreationISM is a very specific HOW of creation. Evolution is also a HOW of creation.

CreationISM has been shown to be false by the data in the physical universe. God simply didn't create that way.

 

[JohnR7]

I had biology class about 5 years ago, and if i can remember correctly, both evolution and creationism were actually included in my science book, which i think is kind of suprising.

I took Biology about 35 years ago. My instructor was a graduate of Harvard. I do not remember him teaching us anything at all about evolution. We learned about cells and things like that.

 

[Dayton]

"Creation"? Chud, evolution is just as much a theory of creation as is creationISM.

CreationISM is a very specific HOW of creation. Evolution is also a HOW of creation.

CreationISM has been shown to be false by the data in the physical universe. God simply didn't create that way.

CreationISM is how God Created. Evolution is a baseless assumption. EvolutionISM is a faith-based religion that tries to undermine Christianity.

Children should be taught true science in schools, not baseless assumptions and non-Christian beliefs.

 

[goat37]

CreationISM is how God Created. Evolution is a baseless assumption. EvolutionISM is a faith-based religion that tries to undermine Christianity.

Children should be taught true science in schools, not baseless assumptions and non-Christian beliefs.

true science? judging from your posts, you don't know what science really is.

science is NOT taking everything a 2,000 year old book literally because it is allegedly inspired by an omnipotent omniscient invisible being that supposedly created the universe and everything in it all in mature form.

 

[lucaspa]

CreationISM is how God Created.

That's what got falsified by 1831. By creationists.

Remember, creationISM was THE accepted scientific theory in the period 1700-1831. Now, if "Evolution is a baseless assumption", as you suggest, then why did science give it up? Remember, at the time all scientists were Christians or deists at worst. Many of them were also ministers.

EvolutionISM is a faith-based religion that tries to undermine Christianity.

1. Michael Ruse has said that there is a new faith called evolutionism. However, it is not clear that this is distinct from the faith based atheism. Nor is it clear that evolutionism is trying to undermine Christianity. Can you document this assertion?

2. None of us here are advocating evolutionism. Nor can I find any example of it being taught in schools. If you find such an incident, let us and the NCSE know so we can stop it.

Children should be taught true science in schools, not baseless assumptions and non-Christian beliefs.

Children can't be taught Christian beliefs in school. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause. Nor can students be taught atheism. Again, violation of the Establishment Clause.

Right now, students are taught "true science". If you can find us an example of science being taught as atheism, then we are all ears. Do you have such an example?

 

[lucaspa]

science is NOT taking everything a 2,000 year old book literally because it is allegedly inspired by an omnipotent omniscient invisible being that supposedly created the universe and everything in it all in mature form.

Goat, you missed it. Science is NOT taking the Bible literally because some PEOPLE SAY it should be taken literally. Remember, this isn't about deity but about what fallible people are saying about deity and the scientific theory -- creationism -- concocted by these fallible people.

 

[Hank]

I voted other
Schools should teach what science knows.

My experience in Germany is simple, we were taught biology and physics.

The teachers also mentioned evolution as the mechanism known for us to exist. The monkey bit. And we came from the sea. I disagreed. No problem. It was not part of the tests.

This was 1970, and I was more interested in the anatomy of girls anyway.

 

[lucaspa]

I voted other
Schools should teach what science knows.

My experience in Germany is simple, we were taught biology and physics.

If you were not taught evolution, then you were taught biology as a host of unrelated facts.

As Dobzhansky said: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

You got cheated in your education. Perhaps you could demand your money back?

As to the anatomy of girls, weren't we all more interested in that in our teens? But schools are supposed to look beyond our hormones.

 

[bagfullofsnakes]

CreationISM is how God Created.

Actually, "creationISM is a belief that god created, with emphasis on the "that", as opposed to the "how". And, as it's been mentioned already, it's been thouroughly falsified.

Evolution is a baseless assumption.

Wrong again. Evolution is a completely valid scientific theory. And, like all scientific theories, it's based on facts, not assumptions.

EvolutionISM is a faith-based religion that tries to undermine Christianity.

Well, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "evolutionism". Perhaps there really is a religion that is called this, which seeks to undermine Christianity? Frankly, it's hard to imagine anything doing a better job of undermining christianity that christianity itself, so I'm a little skeptical that there is an entire religion devoted to the task.

Children should be taught true science in schools

It would be SO much easier if the creationists (of "creationISM" ilk) would simply get out of the way. But, I agree with you here.

[

, not baseless assumptions and non-Christian beliefs.

Again, I agree with you.

Well, at least with the part about "baseless assumptions". However, I think it would be a very good idea to teach Christian beliefs, alongside of non-Christian beliefs, in a mandatory comparative religion class.

I think that would go a long way to reduce bigotry and intolerance towards those who see the world differently than you.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Bagofsnakes -

Actually, "creationISM is a belief that god created, with emphasis on the "that", as opposed to the "how". And, as it's been mentioned already, it's been thouroughly falsified.

Surely not.

Creationism is a belief that God created, with the "how" being a literal interpretation of Genesis. This has indeed been falsified.

Creation is the belief that God created, with no mention of the "how". This is a faith statement, completely outside science and unfalsifiable, since anything can be "that's how God did it"

 

[Jet Black]

I think bagofsnakes got a little confused there! karl is correct in this.

 

[Achichem]

It all depends on how far they go with the evolutionary theory. I was thought it twice (no, I don’t know why must be a Canadian thing) the first time my teacher was a atheist and a believer that evolutionary theory explains the existence of all species. He thought this n his classroom and convinced many Christian and Jewish that it was fact that was in till I compile ample evidence (8 page report) that he could not make that statement based not on that evolution doesn’t exist but that evolution is just a process of the workings of the earth. He actually said in the end that he admits to my demands and gave me time to present my side to the class. My second teacher thought it as a process that can work within the bound of genesis (may have been going to far) this is where my problem lies

I think that schools should just explain the process of evolution and not teach that it explains life, but instead the diversity of species as it was intended (perhaps not, but on merit this is the case)

For that was they keep all sides happy, the problems with evolution are as big as many forms of creationism.

But what about the evidence that humans came of monkeys, I think that we should only show the variety of skeletons (computer models) found (homo-erectus, homo-sapiens, Neanderthals, ect.) and their time periods, this is all we truly know drawing in the lines is something that is for the individuals. This is because much of the scientific evidence in this regard is not congruent with evolutionary theory, in the minds of too many. So the theories on this which include the evolutionary process to homo-sapiens should and can be explored but only as an option.

too many children take theroys as facts, too much is a stake to make a mistake in this regard.

 

[Jet Black]

It all depends on how far they go with the evolutionary theory. I was thought it twice (no, I don’t know why must be a Canadian thing) the first time my teacher was a atheist and a believer that evolutionary theory explains the existence of all species.

I think that schools should just explain the process of evolution and not teach that it explains life, but instead the diversity of species as it was intended (perhaps not, but on merit this is the case)

if you are saying that evolution does not include abiogenesis, then you are right.

For that was they keep all sides happy, the problems with evolution are as big as many forms of creationism.

not really. the problems in creationism are ones that have falsified it as a theory. remember that creationism is a theory that includes all things from explanations of geology, right the way through to the diversity of life. evolution focuses only on life. there are predictions that evolution made, that have been found consistently correct, and this is not the case with creationism.

But what about the evidence that humans came of monkeys,

we shared a common ancestor......

This is because much of the scientific evidence in this regard is not congruent with evolutionary theory, in the minds of too many. So the theories on this which include the evolutionary process to homo-sapiens should and can be explored but only as an option.

what evidence is not congruent with the theory. remember a true statement cannot have false consequences, so if you have some evidence that directly contradicts evolution then you would be a very famous person indeed.

too many children take theroys as facts, too much is a stake to make a mistake in this regard.

too true, which is why I believe that religion does not have a place in schools. science should also be taught as a method: one in which a model is constructed from the evidence, and incorrect interpretations of the evidence are removed by falsification with evidence. It is a very important thing for children to learn, and if they did this, then they would stop accepting things as "fact" and truly understand the nature of science.