Teaching Evolution in the schools

[Brimshack]

Alright, I'm starting this here, becasue I want to focus on the legal and political implications, but if it ends up in science then so be it.

I think evolution should be taught in the schools, and I would be opposed to teaching creation science or to advocating creationism in K-12. Note that I would not object to discussion of creatism on some level in K-12, though I would see it more as background materil for history and literature. And if any particular teacher wants to advocate creationism in college, and can make a case for its relevance to his class, then so be it.

I realize that many Christians consider the teaching of evolution (and not creation science) unfair because it conflicts with their views. The problem is that evolution is the state of the art in many physical sciences, and I don't think teachers should be forced to weaken the theoretical figor of their classes in the interest of democratic fairness. The way I see it, if evolution's critics can win the dayn d gain control of the scientific community, then so be it. Until that time, evolution stays, and creation science, which simply isn't science, has no current place on the curriculum. If a introductory student can demonstrate that they understand evolution, and wants to add say to the end of an essay 'this is bunk', they still get their grade. They shouldn't beforced to accept evolution if they don't believe it, but they are responsible for learning the current state of the art in the physical sciences.

Have at me!

 

[Warrior4Jah]

Ahem, brimshack. You can argue that teaching creationism is wrong because there the athiest kids who dont believe in God. But then we can also argue that teaching evolutionism is wrong because there are kids who do believe in God and what the bible says. Of course, in our society neither theorys are entirely correct, there are just that, theory. You cannot teach theory as if it were fact, you can educate children on the different kinds of theories and what they represent, including creationism.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

So you can make a kid right a paper on CREATIONISM and make sure they understand, and at the end say "Thats a load of crap" yet still get their grade. Well, in my school if I said crap I got in trouble, but you get the idea

 

[Warrior4Jah]

Dont forget neither theories are proven, thus theory, so either one are considered ultimately just as likely as the other. Peoples oponion on which ones are right and which arent are just that, oponions.

 

[Brimshack]

"You can argue that teaching creationism is worng because there the athiest kids who dont believe in God."

This is a straw man, none of the opposition to teaching Creationism is based on the need to be fair to atheists (which is neither here nor there as far as the actual theory is concerned).

"But then we can also argue that by teaching evoutionism is wrong becuase there are kids who do believe in God and what the bible says."

That's what I mean by not compromising the rigor of the lesson out of a misplaced sense of democracy. Those kids who wish to believe otherwise should not be forced to profess such belief, but the lesson plans should not be altered on their behalf.

"You cannot teach theory as if it work fact."

A red herring. Evolution is indeed a theory, and that is exactly how it is taught. Some theories are better than others, and one of the ways you tell that is by looking at their relationship to facts. At present, the consensus within the relevant scholarly community is that evolution is the theory that best accounts for the known facts.

"Crap?"

This is a complete non-sequitor.

 

[Brimshack]

Re: Post # 4. There remain questions about either theory, but this does not make them both equally pausible. And yes, there are opinions at issue, but not all opinions are equaly plausible.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

Ok, dropping the fairness between religion thing, obiously not the argument.

"A red herring. Evolution is indeed a theory, and that is exactly how it is taught. Some theories are better than others, and one of the ways you tell that is by looking at their relationship to facts. At present, the consensus within the relevant scholarly community is that evolution is the theory that best accounts for the known facts."

Thats also an oponion. Even if it were true that evoltuion seemed more likely (oponion, simply because I dont feel the same, many woudl see it your way and many would see it mine. Oponion.) it wouldnt make a difference because you cannot tell a child a theory is fact. You cant. Nor an you tell him thats its more likely because like I said thats an oponion, you can only present what each theory currenty represents, then let a child decide for himself. Which is hwy if your going to teach Evolutionism you have to teach creationism as well. But considering there are so many hundreds of theories, its best to live THEORY out completely until they come up with one or the other being proven fact. Thats what they teach in school, history and the fact.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

Do you see where im coming from brim?

 

[Brimshack]

Of course, but I think you are completely misrepresenting the relationship between theory and fact. There is an ultimate circularity to all reasoning, and so even the most rigorous of scientific methods or the conclusions drawn thereform can be dismissed as theories or opinions. The point is that those are theories and opinions with more substance to them, and in which schools have already vested a great deal of authority.

You are , btw, fully invested in the most thoroughgoing subjectivism possible. I wonder how you square this with the absolutism of your religious beliefs. you do consider Christianity to be absolutely true, do you not?

 

[chickenman]

if you teach creationism then you have to teach raelianism too;

http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html

both are "theories"

 

[LouisBooth]

"Evolution is indeed a theory, and that is exactly how it is taught"

You've got to be joking.

 

[Brimshack]

Not at all Louis, but of course this strange dichotomy between theory and fact has reached mythical proportions for many a Creationist, so I have no way of knowing what that would mean to you guys anyway.

 

[LouisBooth]

Well most places I have heard of or been to teach it as cold hard fact with no problems at all, essentially denying the very definition of "theory". I personally wouldn't mind them saying it is the best theory (although I dont' think that) but they don't even do that, they say 1. its the ONLY theory and 2. its not a theory its law (according to the definations).

 

[Brimshack]

Well we certainly went to different schools then, but I suspect that you are paraphrasing them a bit loosely. They might have said it was currently the only CREDIBLE theory from a scientific point of view. Could you please clarify what you mean by the claim that it's a law?

 

[LouisBooth]

I guess so. Well in AP bio (bio 2 in HS) I was told that it can't be disproven, its fact and to live with it, even when I asked questions I was scoffed at by my teacher. Another friend of mine was told he couldn't write a paper about the holes in evolution, or faults of it because there were none at all and it was not faultable. I'm not paraphrasing them loosly at all. How long ago did you go to HS brim?

 

[Brimshack]

I dropped out after my Junior year in 84. What I mean by paraphrasing loosely is this:

"It's a fact" Theories work in conjunction with facts, and saying that a theory is fact could work as a shorthand for saying that the individual thinks the theory is supported by facts. This would demonstrate sloppy thinking on behalf of the teacher, but even this doesn't amount to the claim that evolution is not a theory. That dichotomy is itself strained beyond belief. I have no way of knowing what you actually said that made the teacher scoff, but S/He should not have scoffed in any event.

I also fail to understand why your friend was prevented from writing a paper criticizing evolution. Whether the teacher considered it a closed case or not, I would think it would be better to encourage more constructive engagement. It could be that S/He thought the particular critique your friend was using had no chance. Even an advocate for evolution should be capable of conceding that their are problem areas. Whether or not they should be used to opportunistically argue for intelligent design is another matter. Frankly my own response would depend partly on how bright I thought the student was. If I thought the student was capable of producing a well-argued critique I would whole-heartedly endorse such a project, but if I expected a bunch of straw man arguments, I would encourage the student to find another topic, one S/He might be more likely to handle responsibly.

It may be that you encountered a few hacks, so I don't knowwhat was going on there. All I can say is that the claim that evolution is ONLY a 'theory' is usually a deliberate distortion of what that term should mean, and that if you found some teachers that couldn't be comfortable with discussing it as a theory, you probably had some very bad teachers. (That's why you should have dropped out like me.)

 

[LouisBooth]

LOL..if you say so, but I'm going with it benefitted me more then anything else. Just got me ready for what people said in the science industry as a whole, but thankfully, that's finally changing. The pedulem is sliding back again to the middle.

 

[Brimshack]

Hee Hee, middle of North and South or middle of East and West.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Well, teaching the Theory of Evolution is done well for the most part, I'm sorry Louis Booth got a bad teacher.

The problem with teaching a "Creation Science" theory is that there currently is not one, most "Creation Scientists" seem to be too busy trying to shoot down Evolution to be bothered to come up with a coherent theory of their own. They do not seem to understand that poking a hole in anothers ballon does not make one magicaly appear in your hand. Evolution may be grossly wrong, but until they get off their collective duffs and make a better theory it is the only game in town.

 

[psycmajor]

I think the problem with public schools is that the theory of evolution has a monopoly over any other possibility.

PERHAPS ONE TIME since I've been in public school and college was I ever told that I didn't have to believe that evolution was fact. By the way, that teacher was a Christian.