Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Buffy]

there can be no scientific discussion as creationism is simply conjecture and not science;)

...and that of course is the interesting option!

 

Of course those who support teaching Creationism Intelligent Design in schools would *howl* if it was used as an *example* of "simple conjecture" compared critically to Evolution as a supported Scientific Theory that has been thoroughly subjected to the rigors of the Scientific Method.

 

What wicked and dissembling glass of mine made me compare with Hermia's sphery eyne? :friday:

Buffy

[pamela]

and howl they would.....

Such emotions and feelings are the very things that start the fire that consumes all reasonable common sense. To lash out and throw insults from either side of the issue will not change anything. It only serves to keep us all in a perpetual state of upheaval among the masses.

To attempt to even bring up the concept among many procreationists, a wall of defensiveness is immediately constructed. They want to protect their "god" and not allow for his/hers feelings to be hurt. The possibibilty of these written words being anything other that literal fact, is not even entertained. We remain an emotional lot, hence is our nature.

Providing clear, concise factual information is needed for not only the student but for every one. In just teaching about carbon dating for example, refutes the notion of world only having been in existance for 6000 or so years.

I would not expect that evolution would be taught on an elementary level as this is the frame in which the basics of reading, math and introduction to the sciences are taught. By middle school, the foundations have been laid and the conceptual understanding can now come into play.

And by this time, Moontanman, all those who bought the lie of Santa Clause, have come to know that he was a myth.

The facts cannot be refuted, when evidence has been provided.The Old Testament, an interesting piece of literature that can bring both dismay and hope, cannot be used as an accurate time line of events.There just is no data to support it as being so. It is our responsibility to provide accurate knowledge to the up in coming adults.And just as Greek and Roman mythology have a place in the classroom, so does the myth of creationism as well.

[REASON]

It is our responsibility to provide accurate knowledge to the up in coming adults.And just as Greek and Roman mythology have a place in the classroom, so does the myth of creationism as well.

 

Well said, Pam.

 

While I agree that these discussions may have a place in the classroom, I'm usually specific in stating that this doesn't mean the science classroom, particularly the Biology classroom. Philosophy, or a class on world religions and their beliefs would be more appropriate.

 

But this is not acceptable to those that are pushing ID in the science class. They are not just trying to get ID taught in school, they want it to be presented as viable scientific research that directly contradicts what they believe to be the premise of evolution - that life evoled independent of god. And they wholly recognize the importance of influencing children.

 

There are plenty of other opportunities for kids to be exposed to religious teaching. The true purpose of ID is to undermine the science of evolution.

 

Also, I don't particularly agree with HB that we should start young children off with Creationism because they would prefer that kind of story, and then expose them to the truth later on. I have said it before that simple, creative concepts surrounding the development of the solar system and the evolutionary process, for instance, could be produced for young children that would be interesting and fun to learn. Consider Bill Nye, for example. He's great at making science education fun and exciting, and even funny.

 

Obviously, parents should be free to choose what to teach their kids. But when it comes to public education, the responsibility of the state is to teach children using current methods and information in each subject, that isn't contaminated by the influence of a particular group's ideology, even if it is prominant in the community.

[Turtle]

Ahhh the good ol' days. To put things in perspective a bit, Hypographians decided to create the Theology section a couple years back when we experienced a spate of postings on creationism (the pig) and intelligent design (the lipstick for the pig) as a result of efforts in Kansas to mandate their teaching as science. Texas now's got the same ol' pig and lipstick show goin' and all the props & costumes we have already in our Hypographic vaults. ;)

 

...The facts cannot be refuted, when evidence has been provided.The Old Testament, an interesting piece of literature that can bring both dismay and hope, cannot be used as an accurate time line of events.There just is no data to support it as being so. It is our responsibility to provide accurate knowledge to the up in coming adults.And just as Greek and Roman mythology have a place in the classroom, so does the myth of creationism as well.

 

Well, the Old Testamnet actually does have some verifiable time elements, as well as some verifiable characters. It's not what the devout want to hear though I'll wager. I recommend watching the program I reported on in another thread with this post:

 

Who (re-wrote) the Old Testament? Well, J, E, & D among others, if recent archaeology is any judge of the matter. I recommend this most excellent program from PBS's NOVA series.

:friday:

 

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | PBS

[HydrogenBond]

What we all forget. not too long ago medical science was doing blood letting based on the understanding and empirical data of that time. This has long changed and advanced but only because technology allows us to see cels and beyond. I am sure the science of the day had their own theories for evolution. If we had this debate, at that time, the more science minded would insist on the spontaneous creation theory but using physical explanations instead of god. This would correlate this with data and could have used statistics if that had been available to make it look like this was a valid representation of reality.

 

I am not saying creationism is correct, but science is a work in progress and needs to be seen that way, so young people are more willing to question and advance it to the next level. I like evolution, but it has built in fudge factors via statistics, which may be the reality of evolution, or may also be an artifact of a good empirical correlation that still has some missing logic, that makes it sort of useless for prediction. Say we had a theory of gravity that could predict at the same level as evolution, would we lobby to carve this into stone? Science would be a little tentative since, since it lacks sufficient logic to allow that. I see evolution still able to get better so once day we know what is next.

[Galapagos]

What we all forget. not too long ago medical science was doing blood letting based on the understanding and empirical data of that time. This has long changed and advanced but only because technology allows us to see cels and beyond. I am sure the science of the day had their own theories for evolution. If we had this debate, at that time, the more science minded would insist on the spontaneous creation theory but using physical explanations instead of god. This would correlate this with data and could have used statistics if that had been available to make it look like this was a valid representation of reality.

 

I am not saying creationism is correct, but science is a work in progress and needs to be seen that way, so young people are more willing to question and advance it to the next level. I like evolution, but it has built in fudge factors via statistics, which may be the reality of evolution, or may also be an artifact of a good empirical correlation that still has some missing logic, that makes it sort of useless for prediction. Say we had a theory of gravity that could predict at the same level as evolution, would we lobby to carve this into stone? Science would be a little tentative since, since it lacks sufficient logic to allow that. I see evolution still able to get better so once day we know what is next.

This is incredibly disingenuous Hbond. There are no weaknesses or any reason not to teach children about evolution.

98% of the professors in Texas disagree with you about teaching evolution in their classes:

98% of Texas scientists back evolution teaching

AUSTIN — The verdict from Texas scientists is nearly unanimous: 98 percent favor the unadulterated teaching of evolution in public school classrooms, according to a report released Monday as the State Board of Education prepares to weigh in on the controversy.

 

A vast majority of the scientists say students would be harmed if the state requires the teaching of the “weaknesses” of evolution, according to the survey by Raymond Eve, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Arlington, and conducted for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund.

 

“With 94 percent of Texas faculty ... telling me it shouldn't be there, I tend to believe them,” Eve said of the requirement that schools teach the weaknesses of evolution.

 

More than 450 biology or biological anthropology professors at 50 Texas colleges and universities participated in a 59-question survey.

 

 

 

If you want to teach children about the progress of science, then why not about transmutationism, saltationism, or Lamarckism

 

If you want to include any creation mythology, it needs to be in a class on religion or mythology. Objective courses discussing the doctrine, history, music, creeds, prohibitions, mythology of all religions on equal footing with no value judgements.

Creation myths are simply not competing with scientific theories, and it is dishonest try frame them as such.

Dan Dennett addresses the problem of religion and education well, I think:

YouTube - Daniel Dennett: Freedom of information and toxic or non-toxic religions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQk7jBjOI8A

Edge: SHOW ME THE SCIENCE by Daniel C. Dennett

[Galapagos]

Some more blog coverage of the action in Texas:

A WTF Moment in Texas - The Panda's Thumb

EDIT-- the above quotation has been identified as a quote mine. read the link for more details..

 

On top of this, a laundry list of typical and failed creationist arguments have been made:

The Austringer Texas: Your “Weaknesses” Are Weak — And Old, Too

The thing that interests me about the content of the hearing is how plainly the antievolutionist board members espoused the standard religious antievolution ensemble of talking points as their “weaknesses”, and not anything approaching any sort of technical content worthy of being considered a “weakness”.

[...]

Here’s a list gleaned from the liveblog records:

 

Piltdown man (Ken Mercer)

 

Haeckel’s embryos (Ken Mercer)

 

Macroevolution not observed (Ken Mercer)

 

Argument from authority (Terri Leo)

 

Evolution is only a theory (various)

 

“Academic freedom” (Ken Mercer)

 

Evolution is not a fact (witness)

[Moontanman]

Some more blog coverage of the action in Texas:

A WTF Moment in Texas - The Panda's Thumb

 

The above almost looks like sarcasm because its so lame. It is unnerving to read such stupidity and know that the education of thousands of children is at stake.

On top of this, a laundry list of typical and failed creationist arguments have been made:

The Austringer Texas: Your “Weaknesses” Are Weak — And Old, Too

 

The really sad thing about all this is even if the creationists win, they still loose. No matter how much noise and support they garner they are still wrong and sadly too ignorant to know they are wrong. Reality is not an issue that can be won by my side is bigger or stronger than your side. So even if they win they loose:doh:

[Galapagos]

The really sad thing about all this is even if the creationists win, they still loose. No matter how much noise and support they garner they are still wrong and sadly too ignorant to know they are wrong. Reality is not an issue that can be won by my side is bigger or stronger than your side. So even if they win they loose:doh:

Agreed. The creationists have placed themselves in a lose-lose situation. The children however, will win out if religious pseudoscience is recognized as what it is and dismissed as such.

 

More coverage for those out there who are interested in following along:

 

The blog Evo Sphere had some good live coverage. Lots of pictures, even Barney the Dinosaur was there:

 

More over at the Texas Freedom Network blog:

Creationists who control the board have argued that teaching students arguments against evolution is simply a matter of academic freedom. Apparently, however, limiting public discussion about the wisdom of such a policy is just fine with them.

 

The January meeting will be the last — and only the second — public hearing on science curriculum standards that will be in place for a decade. Yet McLeroy and other board members appear to have decided that they can’t be bothered to listen for more than a few hours.

 

Speakers who support watering down instruction on evolution were outnumbered by about 8-1 on Wednesday by those who support giving Texas kids a science education that’s appropriate for the 21st century. We’re left to wonder if creationists who control the state board would support hearing more testimony in January if their supporters had carried the day this week.

 

Also, some more not-quite-comical creationist nonsense:

Evolution proponents descend on state education panel | Top Stories | Star-Telegram.com

"Scientists overwhelmingly consider evolution to be established, mainstream science, and scientists have been crystal-clear in explaining that phony arguments against evolution are based on ideology, not science," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network.

 

Wendee Holtcamp, a freelance writer, drew a sharp reprimand from McLeroy when she accused the board of lying. "Are you willing to play dice with our children’s education as our nation’s science lead deteriorates?" Holtcamp asserted.

 

One of the few voices from the other side came from Paul Kramer, a Carrollton engineer, who said that more than 700 eminent scientists welcome the teaching of pros and cons about evolution. Not allowing debate over untested and unproven theories "seems out of place in a free society” and is reminiscent of book-burning in Nazi Germany, he said.

 

I guess the above creationist(Kramer) hasn't heard of Project Steve, a list of over 900 scientists with the name Steve, who support teaching evolution.

[HydrogenBond]

Evolution is good science. What I don't understand is why science is so insecure if evolution has so much scientific backing? I am not saying creationism is correct or right, but based on the arguments of science, why are they afraid?

 

It is like a modern auto dealer who has someone wanting to put a rubber band powered auto business near his business. If he really thought it was silly, he would let them to build it because in the end reality will set in and the fool would lose his shirt. If, on the other hand, he went to the zoning commission and called in favors on the city council to prevent construction then he is not too confident in his modern auto. What the science mouth says (good science) and the way the science body language is acting ( we need a monopoly) appears different. It is illogical to expect a defensive emotional reaction from a "sure thing".

 

Again I am not saying creationism is sound science or even science, but the defensive reaction by science tells me science seems to feel the need for a monopoly or protectionism, that other areas of science don't ask for. I asked myself what defects do they see?

 

This situation reminds me of a friend who became involved in a odd church with his family. That church preached getting back to original things and would not allow them to celebrate Christmas, since this was partly Pagan. I thought it strange to take away this fun time from the kids. I questioned what is the big deal. I tried to understand the strong insecure reaction. It was like the church feared the competition since it was standing on shaky ground, even though it pitch the validity of its claim as the true religion. It should not have mattered in terms of the nuts and bolts of faith, but it did matter in terms of their philosophy.

 

The way I explain this emotional reaction from science, is evolution is not based purely on logic. It does contains logic in the analysis, but it also uses statistics to support fuzzy premises and to fill in discontinuities. So it can't project cool logic. All those breaks from pure logic creates an emotional aspect since these are gaps where logic fails. This blend of logic and emotion is philosophy.

 

Creationism has bigger gaps in its own logic, but they don't claim to be cool logical science but use emotion in a forward manner via faith. Evolutionists can't see their own emotional gaps due to logic breaks. The defensive reaction appear to be connected to their being afraid emotion may shift young people away from the partial emotional logic of evolution. With a monopoly you can control the young mind to just eat and swallow whole. If there is competition, the salesmen has to put up with those questions from the comparative shoppers and the competition that is next door.

 

You won't see chemistry challenged by the religious people nor science giving it much thought if it was. This is solid in the mind of both. Evolution is insecure science. This vulnerability is why religion is able to get a foot hold. It is not clearly enough defined to eliminate the emotional sentiment. This adds philosophy to the science. Religion is showing how one can start with pure philosophy and add a little science to it. They are both on the border of pure science and pure religion.

[Eclogite]

You have it bass ackwards Hyrdogen Bond. Science is very secure about evolution. However, it is evolution that the fundamentalists have chosen to attack.

 

Science itself tells us that most people are governed much of the time by their emotions and do not apply logical thought. They can accept without question what they are told about the physics of falling objects, or the chemistry of steels, because this knowledge does not threaten their core beliefs. This is not the case with evolution.

 

For a considerable time - and still to a considerable extent - science, or rather scientists, simply ignored the ludicrous attacks made on evolution by fundamentalists. They assumed these attacks were irrelevant, since they were illogical and founded on emotion. Only recently has 'science' recognised the very real threat such pernicious thinking represents and that is why 'science' is responding.

[REASON]

Evolution is good science. What I don't understand is why science is so insecure if evolution has so much scientific backing? I am not saying creationism is correct or right, but based on the arguments of science, why are they afraid?

 

Again I am not saying creationism is sound science or even science, but the defensive reaction by science tells me science seems to feel the need for a monopoly or protectionism, that other areas of science don't ask for.

 

Neither the science of evolution nor those that are conducting it, espousing it, or teaching it, are insecure or affraid other than whether the integrity of public science education is to be upheld by state and local authorities, and not be corrupted by the influence of those who seek only to undermine legitimate science in favor of their ideological beliefs and worldview.

 

 

You won't see chemistry challenged by the religious people nor science giving it much thought if it was. This is solid in the mind of both. Evolution is insecure science. This vulnerability is why religion is able to get a foot hold. It is not clearly enough defined to eliminate the emotional sentiment. This adds philosophy to the science.

 

Many other sciences, such as general chemistry, are not attacked by religious institutions because they are not seen as a threat to religious teachings. It has nothing to do with evolution being "insecure" and therefore open to attack by religious philosophy.

 

Evolution is seen as a direct contradiction to literalist Creation theory and presents a world view that is believed to be atheistic and heretical. It is challenged for the same reasons the Copernican heliocentric model of the universe was challenged by the church. It was seen as contrary to scripture. If you are trying to convince people to believe that the Bible is the word of god, and that god created the heaven and Earth, and mankind in his own image as it states in the Bible, than it is important that children aren't being taught scientific research that is contradictory to those biblical ideas, and removes god from the equation. The purpose of transforming biblical creationism into Inteligent Design, is to attempt to give scientific credibility to religious concepts and provide a seemingly legitimate alternative to what is already understood to be legitimate science with the Theory of Evolution.

 

ID is essentially a way out of what has become an established scientific theory, for parents who don't want their children's minds corrupted by godless theories on human origins that are being presented as representations of reality. Especially when it is being paid for by their tax dollars.

 

 

Religion is showing how one can start with pure philosophy and add a little science to it. They are both on the border of pure science and pure religion.

 

The purpose of attempting to add scientific backing to certain religious assertions such as ID or Hydroplate Theory, is simply to try and expand its legitimacy to those who are attuned to science and question the validity of religious teachings, and to bring into question the validity of science that contradicts or undermines their religious belief systems. But they are far from pure science. If they were, they would more rigorously expose their theories to peer review instead of working so hard to expose them to children.

 

So from this point of view, which side is really exposing their insecurities?

[pamela]

Pope sees physicist Hawking at evolution gathering - Yahoo! News

 

This article touched on a few points from Stephen Hawkins recent visit with the pope

 

"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences"

 

"The catholic church teaches a theistic evolution which accepts evolution as scientic theory"

 

At least this is a start down a long journey and hopefully will ease some of the tension along the way

[REASON]

Pope sees physicist Hawking at evolution gathering - Yahoo! News

 

This article touched on a few points from Stephen Hawkins recent visit with the pope

 

"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences"

 

"The catholic church teaches a theistic evolution which accepts evolution as scientic theory"

 

At least this is a start down a long journey and hopefully will ease some of the tension along the way

 

As it were, those that seek to inject Creationism into science classes in our public schools don't find the Catholic Church to be all that legitimate either.

 

But you're right, it is a start. Imagine that, the Catholic Church is more progressive in this regard than certain protestant faiths. Who'd-a-thunk?

[Pyrotex]

well.....We cannot simply hide Creationism under the rug, when so many people believe it to be true.

Both evolution and creationism need to be learned and it is up to the student to determine the legitamacy. ...

Sorry Pam,

but we do NOT require the student to determine the legitimacy of arithmatic, or algebra, or American history, or World history, or geography, or auto maintenance, or penmanship, or English literature, or composition or any other subject in high, middle and elementary school.

 

We do NOT do it, and it is inappropriate. Children do not have the resources, experience, logic, training or aptitude (yet) for "determining legitimacy".

 

What we DO is give them facts, and teach them skills.

If Creationism comes up in the classroom, we need to say simply:

 

"many people believe in Creationism. However it is not supported by physical evidence and it is not supported by rigorous logic. We know that the believers say that it IS. However, the evidence and logic they claim for Creationism, when examined closely, is just a reflection of religious belief or obsession. The efforts to get Creationism taught in school as a "science" has been dealt defeat after defeat in the courts. The schools cannot teach every subject that some small minority of vocal, even militant, people claim as "science". We do not teach astrology, numerology, palm-reading, UFOs, ESP and other subjects for the same reason -- the facts and evidence are just not there, despite the claims of the believers. You are free to research and study any of these topics outside of the classroom. You are free to believe in anything you want. But the national public school system is under no obligation whatsoever to defend or teach your personal beliefs. We are here to educate you."

 

Sorry to disagree with you Pam. :phones: But this time I have to.

Yer frend and admirer,

Pyro

[pamela]

;) rhetoric such a sweet thing to savour....

 

First off, I am certainly not suggesting teaching it as a science, the above posts reflect that. What I do insist upon is the right to think and not just accept what is written, especially in the realm of religion. The data and facts on other subjects was not even in question here. As stated before, I am leaning towards middle school and not younger, and certainly by high school. I have stated that creationism is a myth and should be treated as such along the lines of Greek Mythology. I am not seeing where you and I are disagreeing, my friend:shrug:

[Guest Phoenix_Enflame]

As it were, those that seek to inject Creationism into science classes in our public schools don't find the Catholic Church to be all that legitimate either.

 

But you're right, it is a start. Imagine that, the Catholic Church is more progressive in this regard than certain protestant faiths. Who'd-a-thunk?

 

This was certainly a surprise;

"The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work."