Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Pyrotex]

Ditto

[HydrogenBond]

Part of the fear science has is, the youngest children may actually prefer Creationism, because it is easier to understand and is like a story. Science is dry by comparison and is too factual for the youngest children. The difference, in terms of the youngest children, is between eating ice cream and broccoli. They are not yet sharp enough to think on their own but will follow what comes easier to them. Mom already reads stories and is not showing them graphs of data.

 

The young mind is not suppose to be a robot that you program so it can repeat back without understanding. The goal of science should be help students to question, think and debate. This is what will happen as the children get older. There comes a time when Santa Claus must go. But there is always a place in the heart for this.

 

I could never understand why science is so insecure. They have the preponderance of the evidence and this should be amusing. The only thing I can think of is, if bright students trying to defend creationism, get off the defensive and start asking valid science questions on the offensive, they will often stump the teachers. There may be a good answer, but the teachers will have to work harder to research this to be able to defend science. But everyone learns more by this. If they don't this could spread the seed of uncertainty so there is a choice.

 

Another possibility for science insecurity, is students often rebel against the establishment as they seek their own identities. Eventually they conform as young adults. But for a little while, they may do the opposite. They feel like the underdog and have a soft spot in their hearts for the underdog. Science is the over dog or establishment. We could get bright students, who know science, but who argue just because they enjoy the fight. The students who conform are not the rebels. The rebels have the energy and drive to make things happen. It makes more work for science. But if student have an opportunity to learn, debate and argue this is good for science future. These will be the next generation of leaders who are thinkers.

[InfiniteNow]

HydrogenBond, you're quite insane, aren't you? You are anthropomorphizing science and then going off on this long diatribe about how it's insecure.

 

Nope.

 

It just discards bullshit, exactly as should any future leaders and thinkers.

 

Try again.

[modest]

Part of the fear science has is, the youngest children may actually prefer Creationism, because it is easier to understand and is like a story. Science is dry by comparison and is too factual for the youngest children. The difference, in terms of the youngest children, is between eating ice cream and broccoli. They are not yet sharp enough to think on their own but will follow what comes easier to them. Mom already reads stories and is not showing them graphs of data.

 

I'm sorry HB, but I've never met a kid that didn't want to know why, why, why, why, why.

 

Curiosity is far too abundant in a young mind for what you say to be anywhere near accurate. If and when kids are presented something that doesn't make sense, they want to know why. You think the tendency is to accept creationism because it's less trouble than figuring out the answer. How did you come to this conclusion? It goes against everything I know about children.

 

When my nephew came upon a dead bird around age 3 or 4 - he was troubled. My girlfriend said "Don't worry, it's in heaven and it's happy now"

 

My nephew looked her straight in the face and said - that bird is NOT happy.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

My nephew looked her straight in the face and said - that bird is NOT happy.

 

That's great.

[CraigD]

I'm sorry HB, but I've never met a kid that didn't want to know why, why, why, why, why.

 

Curiosity is far too abundant in a young mind for what you say to be anywhere near accurate. If and when kids are presented something that doesn't make sense, they want to know why.

One of the odder things I learned from associating with a lot of folk in child psychology and related fields is the importance of to be wary of inappropriately anthropomorphizing children. Modest’s observation is one commonly given as an example of this perceptual pitfall.

 

Although children do tend to have an ability to learn much greater in many areas than adults, behavior that would indicate intense curiosity in an adult may indicate something quite different in a child. The “why? why? why? phase”, a normal and common behavior typically seen in children in their “terrible twos”, gives the appearance that the child is interested in searching out the most fundamental explanation of everything. A more careful consideration of the language and cognitive abilities and goals of children in this phase, however, reveals that they are focused primarily on learning how to interact with and control their immediate environment. The “why? - explanation - why? - another explanation - etc.” exchange is attractive to them, because it affords the child great control over the adult or older child with which he plays it, with little cognitive effort his part. It’s one of the most effective strategies available to the child to get a predictable, repeatable reaction: the child asks, the adult answers.

 

It’s apparent to nearly all child psychologists and caregivers, and supportable though formal and informal testing, that the child doesn’t much care what answer he receives, only that ask-response form of the interaction holds true. In many cases, even in much older children with near-adult language skills, the child is not really listening to or learning anything from the content of the response – caregivers commonly amuse themselves by giving silly answers and observing that the child’s behavior is unchanged.

 

There are many variations of the “why? why? why?” behavior. One of the more common replace the question “why?” with “how do you know?” As the child’s comprehension and language skills increase, they may continue to use the form, but process and learn more of the content of the answer. The basic strategy is useful even in adulthood – good salespeople, investigators, and other “people professionals” know the effectiveness of asking questions to make points, gather information other than that asked, and win arguments. The Socratic method can be considered, in a sense, a sophisticated offshoot of the “why, why” game.

[freeztar]

While I agree with much of what you have written, Craig, I must add that children at very young ages (<=2) are at their prime for acquiring not only social skills, but also verbal skills. If a child can make an adult speak more, then there is more potential for a vocabulary increase (not to mention satisfying the need for attention). The underlying behavior is the same, but the reasoning of the behavior can be much more complex than perhaps either of us have suggested.

[modest]

I'm not sure I would agree with that characterization entirely Craig.

 

When a toddler insistently asks why we have to recognize the nature of the conversation we're having. At that age the subject or content of the conversation is not the motivation for the child asking but rather the conversation itself. The child is learning words and language and learning to interact using that language. At this age they do not know what it is they're asking "why" regarding nor why the question "why" gets a response - only that it does. There's a good description here:

 

When children begin to learn real words, the words usually don't correspond exactly to the way adults use them. Often a specific word is used to indicate an entire category or visa versa. "Dog" might mean any animal, while "meow" might mean "cat" -- but only one cat. These early discrepancies are cute and obvious -- and should be caught on videotape if at all possible. But by the time children are able to speak in sentences, it sounds deceptively like they mean the same thing we do. This happens at about the same time their curiosity, imagination, and creativity skyrocket.

 

They begin to ask, "Why?" "Why?!?!" "WHY, Mommy, WHYYYYY?"

 

I've found that, when I try to answer children at this stage of development with the reason for something, they are left cold. After conversing with thousands of children, I've decided that what they really mean is, "That's interesting to me. Let's talk about that together. Tell me more, please?" When I've connected with children and begun to spin a tale to answer this question, they've sat enthralled. There was no need to mention because, or therefore, or cause, or effect. They don't need to know why, all they need is animated attention and me saying whatever came to mind about that subject. After a brief interchange, we were both happy. Let me give you an example.

 

Why Children Ask Why - DrGreene.com"]-Dr.Greene

 

I've personally noticed at age 2 it isn't always the question "why" that gets repeated. With my niece is was "whatcha-doin" over and over. A Hispanic friend with whom I used to work with had a toddler who keep asking "que paso?" I think it's important to recognize they're looking to interact and respond appropriately.

 

By age four the question why has a whole new meaning. It is no longer about learning to interact through language but about the content of the question. Questions mostly deal with something they heard and didn't understand - even from days prior. "What do you mean" is what you get when the answer to "why" fails to get through which is often the case when the explanation is more complicated than the question which is again often the case. The questions fall off by age 12, but I don't think the curiosity does.

 

I don't think attributing curiosity to any of this is anthropomorphizing children. I actually don't think I would ever use the word anthropomorphizing with children of any age. It's important to remember children have feelings and emotions just like grown ups. They don't always cry because they want attention - they may be scared. They can be frustrated or feel delight and they do have curiosity. That curiosity doesn't start out involving things that are meaningful to grownups. It is curiosity about interaction and it is most essential.

 

~modest

[REASON]

I think that while this discussion of children is an important one, it is somewhat beside the point that modest was originally making in his response to HB's comments below:

 

Part of the fear science has is, the youngest children may actually prefer Creationism, because it is easier to understand and is like a story. Science is dry by comparison and is too factual for the youngest children. The difference, in terms of the youngest children, is between eating ice cream and broccoli. They are not yet sharp enough to think on their own but will follow what comes easier to them. Mom already reads stories and is not showing them graphs of data.

 

This implies that children are not equipped to comprehend a scientific understanding of the world and prefer stories of fantasy and metaphor, like the Creation Story.

 

Personally, I think this is a false assertion. Sure, if you sit at the bedside of your young child and choose to read them the latest report on Climate Change by the IPCC as a bedtime story, they're not going to be very interested (I might argue that it would be effective in getting them to sleep). But why are we not creative enough to come up with interesting tales that can lead them to an accurate understanding of human evolution? Why would stories that lead them to an understanding of Creationism be necessarily more palatable to young children?

 

I happen to know for a fact that young children delight in learning about dinosaurs. There seems to be nothing particularly dry and factual about this type of Paleontology. When I was young, I even liked to memorize their scientific names. They were fun to say. In many ways, dinosaurs were my first introduction to evolution since the books I looked at always included charts that categorized them and showed how they were divided into distinct Periods in history.

 

To me, the point is that if it is understood that children have a thirst for knowledge, why would it be a bad idea to orient them toward a scientific understanding of the world around them? You just have to tailor the information to the age and maturity of the child. I'm not saying that fantasy has no place in a child's education, it should just be understood that it is fantasy, not reality.

 

Actually, considering the poor education children are getting these days, I think a science oriented curriculum that teaches critical thinking from a young age would be invaluable.

[Pyrotex]

Personal experience from the late spring of 1980. I had just moved to Houston and had an apartment near JSC. They had a pool and a nice shade tree, so I hung out there most evenings right after work. I didn't know a soul, so when this 3-year old boy came over and started asking questions, I figured a conversation with a child was better than no company at all.

 

I answered his questions. If he fidgeted, I knew I was not "down on his level" yet. So, it became a game for me to see if I could give him correct answers that he COULD appreciate. There WAS a difference. As long as I was not too far from his level of understanding, he was rapt--otherwise, he got distracted. The game became to see if I could get him to refine his question--that is, to stay on subject and demonstrate some absorption of what I had said.

 

We both enjoyed this game immensely. Every day I sat by the pool, he ran right over and the game began again. "Why are trees green?" "What is dirt made of?" "How come this toy won't work?" "What makes cars go?"

 

We both WON at this game when I could find just the right explanation that triggered something inside his head. It was far more than just mere entertainment or passing the time. Part of it was vocabulary stretching, to be sure. But sometimes his 3rd or 4th question on the same subject showed a downright scary ability to absorb, learn, correlate and deduce. This became even more apparent when I started asking HIM questions to test his comprehension.

 

After a month of this, the little guy's father came blustering over to me one day and asked me what the hell I was doing? His kid wouldn't shut up any more!

 

I saw the boy only once after that. His mother called him into their apartment just as I showed up at the pool. The boy hesitated, ran over to me, looked up, and said, "I wish you was my daddy." Then ran back to his mom and inside, leaving me stunned.

[Moontanman]

My boys went through the questioning stage as well. i always ansered their questions as simply or as complex as they wanted but always accurately. Instead of asking why my oldest asked "how come" and the youngest always asked "why not".

[InfiniteNow]

An interesting story over at the Independent today about the teaching of science in school, and how sucky it is.

 

 

Johann Hari: Science is thrilling – except in our schools - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

 

In a moment, I am going to say some words, and I want to know if you begin to drift into a coma. The periodic table. Bunsen burner. Photosynthesis. Eyelids heavy yet? Teat pipette. Petri dishes of mould. Magnezzzzzzzium.

 

So why is there such a swollen gap between this – the thrilling science you can find in any bookshop – and the sludge you were force-fed at school?

 

There are a range of explanations coursing through this Education-Boredom Collider. Today, our schools focus exclusively on one part of science – which happens to be the dullest. Professor Brian Greene of Columbia University says: "We continually fail to reveal the rich vistas opened up by science, and instead focus on the need to gain competency with science's underlying technical details. It squanders the opportunity to make students sit up in their chairs and say, 'Wow – that's science?'" The internal mechanics matter – but they are only part of the story. It's as if art classes consisted solely of learning how to perform individual little brushstrokes, without ever stopping to look at a painting by Caravaggio.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'? Doesn't the study of history show that we seldom get anything right?

 

To say intelligent design is wrong is to also declare that any actual causal theory that might mimic intelligent design is also wrong. If life isn't an accident, then it is driven into existence by forces that we don't yet understand.

 

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct. And aren't there things about 'evolution' that don't make sense? Originally, our understanding of the history of life was thought to be a nice, gradual and ordered series of events. Then it was found that cataclysmic events have played a role and that cast doubt on the nice gradual theory.

 

Why do we assume that now we have it right? Why the insistence on the mirage of certainty?

[freeztar]

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'? Doesn't the study of history show that we seldom get anything right?

 

To say intelligent design is wrong is to also declare that any actual causal theory that might mimic intelligent design is also wrong. If life isn't an accident, then it is driven into existence by forces that we don't yet understand.

 

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct. And aren't there things about 'evolution' that don't make sense? Originally, our understanding of the history of life was thought to be a nice, gradual and ordered series of events. Then it was found that cataclysmic events have played a role and that cast doubt on the nice gradual theory.

 

Why do we assume that now we have it right? Why the insistence on the mirage of certainty?

 

I see two specific problems here. One is that you seem to think evolution describes the emergence of life, which it does not. It only deals with biological changes over time. Two, evolution is a theory. It is taught as if it were certain because of the enormous amounts of evidence supporting it. If some other theory came along that explained our observations better than evolutionary theory, then evolutionary theory would be abandoned or ammended. It is highly unlikely, imho, that evolutionary theory will ever be subplanted, especially not by ID.

[Moontanman]

Why would we teach any theory as 'fact'? Doesn't the study of history show that we seldom get anything right?

 

I would like to point out that evolution isn't thought of as absolute fact nor should it be taught as absolute fact. It is the best theory we have and it is backed up by such overwhelming evidence it's often difficult to think of it as anything other than fact. The only things about it that have been challenged successfully so far have been the fine details.

 

 

To say intelligent design is wrong is to also declare that any actual causal theory that might mimic intelligent design is also wrong. If life isn't an accident, then it is driven into existence by forces that we don't yet understand.

 

ID has absolutely no evidence to back it up, it is supernatural clap trap. Until God shows up personally to confirm it as fact it will remain totally untenable as a theory. It is simply a supernatural based hypothesis with no basis in reality at all. ID assumes that the "intelligent force is God" to say otherwise is disingenuous at best and an out right lie at worst. Science assumes any "guiding force" is a natural by product of the way the universe works.

 

To be able to say any particular theory is wrong is to assume that there is in fact another theory that is correct. And aren't there things about 'evolution' that don't make sense? Originally, our understanding of the history of life was thought to be a nice, gradual and ordered series of events. Then it was found that cataclysmic events have played a role and that cast doubt on the nice gradual theory.

 

Again you are assuming something that simply isn't true, theories are not facts, they are ideas that are backed up by available evidence. A real theory can change as new facts come to light. If enough contradictory facts come to light the theory might be tossed out completely in favor of a new one but no theory is ever thought of as absolutely true. Any theory can be challenged by new evidence. So far all the evidence supports the basic premise of evolution. Some of the details have changed but the idea remains the same. That is why the theory of gradualism contained in the general theory has been modified but the entire theory of evolution is still in place.

 

 

Why do we assume that now we have it right? Why the insistence on the mirage of certainty?

 

What you see as a mirage of certainty is simply the fact of so far overwhelming evidence of the truth of evolution. Your idea of intelligent Design not only has no backing at all in anything but the supernatural it cannot change because it is based on the supernatural. The idea that God did it cannot be backed up by any falsifiable evidence nor can it change to match any new evidence. New evidence is dismissed out of hand in favor of God did it and anything that contradicts that is not admissible. This can be shown by the denial of the evidence for evolution, if ID was a real theory then the people promoting it would have to admit they have no evidence to back it from the natural world and that until they do evolution is the only working theory we have so far.

[koji8123]

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left? shouldn't they have evolved into extinction to something even more evolutionary?

[freeztar]

Just a question, If we evolved from lower species, (e.g. men from apes) then why are there still apes left?

 

That's a very common question. The simple answer is that we did not evolve from apes. That said, humans and apes do share a common ancestor. Apes still exist because they were 'fit' for their environment.