Teaching Evolution in the schools

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by 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).

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

It is fact that species evolve. It has been demonstrated to be fact.

How they evolve, the description of how it happens, the mechanism that the theory of evolution describes, is the theory.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Well psycmajor, as I said, it would not have a monopoly if it wasn't the only game in town. I have yet to see a working theory come out of the "Creation Science" groups. They seem to want to only spend money telling people how bad the theory of evolution is and not on any research that would lead to a compeating theory.

Come on you people in Aig and CRI and the like, if you have such good evidence for creation let's get a working theory together and quit whining. That's the only way the you're ever going to get taken seriously. Stop spending money on the fluff books and get to work on some serious and chalenging scientific theories that actualy work.

Until then I and most of the rest of the world can only assume you have pretty much nothing worth while to offer.

 

[Morat]

  Here's my two cents:

1) What gets taught in science classes is what is currently believed to be the best science by the majority of scientists working in that field.

   Like it or not, evolution certainly qualifies. It is considered to be the linchpin of biology, and virtually every biologist in the world works with it happily and with no real problems.

   While there is debate over some mechanism and concepts (often things like "Which is more important in case X" or "Which clade does this thing belong in") none of the debate is on the level at which even high school students learn.

  So, frankly, if you're going to teach science at all (and biology in specific) you have to teach evolution, because it's the theory biologists work with in their everyday work.

2) There are people who object to evolution. However, there are also people who object to genetics, a round-earth, a heliocentric solar system, and anything else you can imagine.

   Which is why we teach mainstream science. High school students (and high school teachers) are not equipped to seperate fact from fiction. Even in cases of legitimate scientific debate, high school students and teachers lack the education to evaluate all the facts. So, in every field, from Astronomy to Zoology, the mainstream, majority view, is taught.

   That is why evolution should be taught in science class. It's a mainstream theory that is critical and central to biology.

  Creationism should not be. It is not accepted by the majority of biologists (indeed, Creationism seems to exist as a concept only among members of fundamentalist sects of a specific religion). It is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists, in fact.

  So, even if we were to grant some branch or stripe of Creationism as "scientific", it still is a minority view among biologists.   

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Why can't they listen to the Catholics?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Evolutionist works come from scientific organizations and professionals.

Creationist works come from religious organizations and professionals.

Which one should be taught in science class?

 

[Warrior4Jah]

Look man, wether one theory seems more possible or not its still theory and can NOT be taught as fact! It can only be presented as yet another theory, the teaher may even voice an oponion that it is the most likely theory, but theory none the less. No matter what, if your going to teach evolution youd better be teaching any other theory by science including creationism. I know that if ANYONE had taught about evolution the way Louis's school did, or even left out the others, Id have done something about it! Until SOME theory is proven and labeled F A C T I stand to my belief that you have to teach it all equally.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

2) There are people who object to evolution. However, there are also people who object to genetics, a round-earth, a heliocentric solar system, and anything else you can imagine- Morat

Now thats just silly. You cant compare creationism to belief in a flat earth! Its just stupid! We know for fact (evolution is THEORY) that the earth the round! From satellite photos, expeditions, and any other one of the thousand reasons why its fact! Not ALL scientists are atheists freind

SO FRANKLY if your going to teach scence at all teach whats proven and not someones oponion. You keep using the excuse that its a more likely theory, but taht means nothing until ouve got it proven.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Look man, wether one theory seems more possible or not its still theory and can NOT be taught as fact! It can only be presented as yet another theory, the teaher may even voice an oponion that it is the most likely theory, but theory none the less.

That evolution happens is fact. Species do evolve. Some disease bacteria are now imune to certain antibiotics. They have changed. They have evolved. This is fact. It's perfectly appropriate to say that species do evolve. It is fact.

Now how they evolve. What is the cause and the mechanism by which they evolve, that is the theory of evolution. It is a theory and it should be taught as a theory.

I would also say that if kids are not taught the difference between a fact and a theory they are also being taught badly.

However it is fact that species evolve. How that happens in the theory.

No matter what, if your going to teach evolution youd better be teaching any other theory by science including creationism.

However creationism isn't a scientific theory - it's theology combined with random attempts to puch holes in the theory of evolution. Unsuccessfull attempts by the way.

I know that if ANYONE had taught about evolution the way Louis's school did, or even left out the others, Id have done something about it!

There are no other scientific theories on how evolution works.

Until SOME theory is proven and labeled F A C T I stand to my belief that you have to teach it all equally.

Theories never become facts. Facts will always stay facts. Theories always stay theories. Regardless of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports any theory, it will always stay a theory.

Some theories are supported by facts. The more support, the more the theory is accepted. If new facts begin to discredit a theory, that theory will tend to lose support and a new theory is needed.

However if you wait around for theories to become facts, then you will have to wait forever.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

The theory of evoltuion. One day someone might find whatever to rpove it. Suddenly it becomes true, it is a fact, evolution is how the human speices came into existance. Science could one day label it as fact, no onger theory because it would have been proven.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
We know for fact (evolution is THEORY)

Actually, we know for a fact that species evolve.

The theory of evolution, that explains the mechanism by which species evolve, is a theory.

We know that species evolve because it has been observed just as we have observed the earth from satellite photos.

SO FRANKLY if your going to teach scence at all teach whats proven

Again, that species to evolve is proven. Whether the theory of evolution is the correct explanation as to the mechanism involved is not proven but it has an enoumous amount of facts in support of it.

If we waited until all scientific theories are proven, we would not teach any scientific theory because no scientific theory is proven, they only gain more and more support.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
The theory of evoltuion. One day someone might find whatever to rpove it. Suddenly it becomes true, it is a fact, evolution is how the human speices came into existance. Science could one day label it as fact, no onger theory because it would have been proven.

No. You are still confused as to what a theory is and what a fact is.

Theories do not change into facts. That's not the way science works.

 

[crazyfingers]

Warrior4Jah

I suggest that you review this topic on the difference between fact and theory.

 

[Morat]

Now thats just silly. You cant compare creationism to belief in a flat earth!

  Watch me. Creationism is just as much a rejection of modern biology as flat-earthism is a rejection of modern cosmology. In both cases, proponents of the "fringe" theory make claims that are laughable in their absurdity to scientists working in the field.

   Flat-earthers are just more so.

 Its just stupid!

   I'd imagine many geologists feel the same way about people who claim the earth is only 10,000 years old.

 We know for fact (evolution is THEORY) that the earth the round! From satellite photos, expeditions, and any other one of the thousand reasons why its fact! Not ALL scientists are atheists freind

   Sure. But photos can be faked. Strange atmospheric effects might distort the image. It might be a global conspiracy.

  You don't know, do you? It's not proven.

   And, by the way, most scientists aren't atheists, and most biologists aren't atheists, and yet they still all think that evolution is one of the most powerful and well-supported theories in science.

SO FRANKLY if your going to teach scence at all teach whats proven and not someones oponion. You keep using the excuse that its a more likely theory, but taht means nothing until ouve got it proven.

   Then we would teach nothing, for nothing is proven in science. Quick class. 

Theories are not proven. Proof is something that happens in math and logic. Theories are tested and supported. The more well supported and well-tested a theory, the more likely it is to be an accurate model.

   Theories do not become facts. Nor Laws, even. Some theories are so well tested and supported that they might as well be facts, and if any should have this status, evolution should, as it is better supported and tested than things like atomic theory or relativity.

   Theories are the goals of science.

 

[Brimshack]

Psycmajor:

"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."

You don't ever have to believe what a teacher tells you, and your teachers shouldn't have to tell you that. The point is that the teachers are going to cover the most plausible approaches in their own field, and you are responsible for understanding those theories, not necessarily agreeing with them. Depending on the methods of teaching etc., you may even get a chance to critically evaluate those theories, but in any event, teachers can and should advocate their professional stances without having to worry about whether or not that conflicts with the views of any given student. You have a right to make up your own mind, yes, and if any teacher violates that, then you can challenge the grade.

Warrior: I'm sorry, but your fact-opinion game is starting to look like deliberate obfuscation. I'm not gonna play.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

*shrugs* Suit yourself.

 

[Brimshack]

Alright here is the problem. These phrases and others like them keep getting tossed around on this issue:

"…teaching evolution as theory."
"…teaching evolution as fact."

The dichotomy is simplistic to the point of distorting the issue beyond belief. I don't know how you would discuss any theory without also discussing the facts that count as evidence for and against it. To say that a teacher must remember that evolution is a theory is to state a truism, but to say that it must not be taught as fact is either another uncontroversial truism or to say that teachers cannot discuss evidence in favor of the theory at all. It would be one thing to ask teachers to discuss problem areas, which they should dok, even in the absence of this debate, but to pretend that this is merely a reasonable concession to theoretical alternatives is outright deception as far as I'm concerned.

As for both being theories. No, creationism is not a theory. It does not have any of the properties of a scientific theory, and creationists routinely refuse to set forth this so-called theory when asked. To suggest that because evoluytion isn't 'absolutely proven' it is on even par with a non-theory, that generates no hypotheses, and hence, cannot even be studied at all is fairly deceitful. Both theories may be alike in that neither produces apodeictic certainty, but that is not the standard of scientific reasoning that biologists use to test their theories in the first place. once you look at probablistic reasoning, evolution appears as a going concern with significant quantities of evidence. Creation science remains a complete non-starter.

The dichotomy between fact and opinion, is simply a means of avoiding critical thinking. You are ducking the issue with this game Warrior.

 

[chickenman]

tell me warrior 4 jah, would you object to raelianism being taught in science classes?

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

 

[Warrior4Jah]

I odnt know what that is, frst tell me what its about beofre I go to a random link.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

nm, I accidentaly clicked on it. Thats hilarious

 

[Brimshack]

That's an interesting site their chickenman, I may try and cover it, right after I finish all the origin narratives for every American Indian tribe in the country. And just before the origin narratives for every African people. Of course I'll have to wait for the first snow to tell some of the Native American stories, and that means I'll have to squeeze them all in between October and December. perhaps, I should cover the Pacific Islands until then. Got my work cut out for me.