Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Kayra]

While I would find the teaching of creationism in public schools or ID in a science classroom anywhere ludicrous right from conception all the way to implementation, I have come to the conclusion that globally the scientific process is an amazingly self righting mechanism, and reason far more widespread in the general populace then most in this forum believe.

 

Those that choose to believe will believe regardless of the facts. Those requiring some semblance of reason and logic in a scientific discussion would likely lend themselves to Evolution.

 

As proof of this, many "Religious" countries produce excellent scientists and provide deep and meaningful contributions to the world of science.

 

The greatest concern I have is the teaching of these concepts before the student is capable of the required level of critical thinking to be able to establish the difference between a scientific theory (and all the bonuses and shortcomings theories entail) and a that of a religious fable recently constructed with a purpose contrary to reason and logic.

 

With the inclusion of ID in a science classroom I suppose more people would see it as a legitimate concept, but I would think that science would not be the worse for the loss of such folk.

 

Destruction of the legal doctrine of "Separation of church and state" is a drastically different matter and the repercussions of this should be carefully considered.

 

Consequences of this may include (but are most certainly not limited to):

• Reversal or destruction of the very first amendment to your constitution.(Think on that)
  
• Increased intolerance of those NOT of the Christian belief
  
• Eventually granting the government the right of authority over individual conscience(monstrous consequences)
  
• Increased sway of a religious organization over the policies of the entire country. While some would say this is what the country needs, it would only be those of the "correct" faith saying so.
  

As Thomas Jefferson wrote "legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions".

 

Violate this basic tenant of your constitution with great care.

[Moontanman]

I'm telling you guys, this is the most important presidential election I have seen in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Kennedy vs. Nixon). There is probably more at stake on this one than for any election in the 20TH Century. There is more to win and WAAAAAAYYYY more to lose if we wind up with the wrong person in charge.

 

We could well see the end of the "American Experiment", our citizens slowly retreating back into a state of ignorant and uneducated bliss, unable to distinguish between superstition and knowledge, between astronomy and astrology -- gullible victims of every "fat-burner pill", "perpetual motion machine", "herbal cure" and "aura manipulation" con that comes down the pike. Our technological infrastructure will slowly fall apart, and we will sink down into tribalism, book burnings and petty crusades.

 

And the future colonists on Mars and the Moon will all speak Chinese.

 

Most of the time these days I would feel lucky if there were any space colonists at all :hyper: As long as it's a human language I feel it's a plus. But you are correct and not just because of the erosion of science but the religious right seems to be convinced the Earth is the only place we should be and that when god comes back all the stuff we've destroyed will be brought back and fixed. Wow, dinosaurs in my back yard! This BS must end with out a religious war that will kill us all.

[Galapagos]

The trouble is as big as everything else over in Texas:

The Atheist Experience: Crippled dogs and one-trick ponies

I've just returned from the Texas SBOE hearings on Science TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) standards, and I'm so full of disgust and dismay that I'm at a loss for words to express it with enough rancor. You can, however, expect me to go on at length anyway. The whole thing was such a goddamn farce from the outset that I'd had more than enough after only one hour, at which point I could only roll my eyes and walk out the door. If you haven't encountered the gall and dishonestly of creationists on their own turf before, and even if you have many times, it's always the kind of experience that leaves you feeling worse about humanity in general.

 

I wonder if any of our few Texan Hypogaphers are attending. When the "Academic Freedoms" garbage rolled through my state, I was too far from any of the meetings to attend.

[riper]

Living in Bible thumping Alaska, I'm always amazed at peoples ignorance when it comes to evolution. I don't understand how they can believe that Jonah lived in a whale, and then completely deny that evolution is even possible.

 

 

Evolution won't be taught a lot of areas, until there is strong leadership advocating that it is possible, right now religious zealots picket on the platform of hositility with science, perhaps if there was leadership talking about how maybe the two can coexist, there would be steps moved to allow evolution in schools.

 

People dont believe in evolution because they always believe what they want to believe. Even the same Bible that you live in is not the same as it was the very day it came into being. It has been changed into what is more convenient for people.

this is one of the reasons why we face a lot of problems in the world. Instead of looking at what is actually there, we create our own believes that match with our desires. For example, no body said that hanging a cross with Jesus on your neck is going to protect u from evil but yet a lot believe it will.

Evolution denies the very first thing that is writing in the Bible. But it does not denies God.

[pamela]

hello Riper,

yes people will believe what they choose, no doubt.

But there is something to be said for interpretation. You stated that "evolution denies the very first thing written in the bible" and of course that would mean God. I believe what we are addressing here is the evolution of man. With that being said, God created man from dust: what's in dust? If we look beyond the statement that God created man as if in a poof, then maybe we can ascertain that those items found in the earth and subsequent dust are the very things that make up the evolutionary process. From the most simplest organism to variation to adaptation to reproduction and or mutation can lead to the existance of what we know as mankind. What is a day? That God created man on the sixth day-what is that measurement to God? God does not run on man's time table and it would be ludicrous to think he does. Any logically minded person would agree that the earth is not six-seven thousand years old yet mainstream Christianity would want you to believe that.To take the bible in its most literal form is a recipe for disaster, and I believe that history has proven that. There is absolutely no reason why evolution should not be taught in schools. The mindset needs to change. It is these people who would prevent this from happening are the same ones who choose to put God in a box. A god that they have created as opposed to a creator.Science is science and religion is religion they are separate but can coexist, as long as minds remain open and not constrained to interpretation.

[Pyrotex]

Hi Pam, :D

everything you said is pretty much true. But Riper has a point, I think. Or he reminded me of a point.

The big reason that educational organizations cannot educate children about the fundementals of biology (aka, evolution) is that critical thinking is required. The teachers don't have it and cannot defend teaching evolution. The parents don't have it and are free to use any substitute for critical thinking they have at hand. For example, appeals to authority ("my preacher says the Bible tells us..."), anecdotal evidence, ("I heard that one of them evolutionists at a college openly condemned the Bible as garbage..."), urban myths ("those human and dinosaur footprints they found right here in Texas proves that..."), falsified facts ("My church showed that when college kids believe in evolution, they're twice as likely to have oral sex with..."), stupid pseudo-facts ("Those evolutionists can't even agree among themselves, so the whole thing must be bogus..."), and on and on and on.

 

And there's nobody there to refute this STUFF. Everybody nods their head. Yup. Makes sense to me.

 

Unfortunately, teaching critical thinking skills is a prerequisite for teaching evolution. Or for teaching history itself, or for teaching any other history-like science.

And they don't teach critical thinking in Texas.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't have a problem with both versions being taught in school. Here is what I see happening. Creationism will be preferred by the youngest children, if we didn't lobby and brain wash one way or the other. The reason is, science is not easy for everyone. It will take time to develop the science concepts to a level where evolutionary theory can be understood and not just blindly memorized like a religion. The concepts of genes and statistical proof, will confuse the young child since it takes some skill to master it. Creationism is easier to pick up, since it is written like a story.

 

As an analogy, it is easier to teach small children the fairy tale that atoms are like little solar systems with little electron planets going around the central nucleus sun, than try to teach them about wave functions. Wave functions would be as hard teach a young child even though it is true. The child would get bored and default to the solar system analogy since it is more fun to learn. But this lesson isn't even real, so it is not science in the scientific sense of being provable.

 

It would be interesting for parents to be act impartially, for the children's sake, and let them learn both. As their educational maturity evolves let the children make their own choices. As time goes on and their science knowledge advances, more and more children will shift to evolution. Just treating evolution as a dogma, at young ages, is not what science is, since science requires proof. Science is handcuffed relative to its own philosophy of proof at the younger ages. But in the second half science comes into its own.

[Pyrotex]

HB!! :D That makes sense.

[pamela]

me thinks they are rote teaching the bible;)

alas, this is sad.... what does it profit a student to lay down all the information and yet not have understanding?

(Pam's twist on an old adage)

[Essay]

Evolution denies the very first thing that is writing in the Bible.

Doesn't the "very first thing... in the Bible" supports Evolution?

 

GENES IS... In the beginning....

 

~ :)

 

...But seriously, rote memorization has a place in the developing mind, separate from understanding, IMHO.

 

Who would deny the joy of later insight, as wisdom finally informs an old adage?

 

Or what about how the rhythm of memorized language informs our later creativity ...and even conprehension, perhaps?

 

~ :D

[Moontanman]

Creationism or ID should not be taught in school, not to young kids not to old kids not to college kids. It's lies, it's like teaching Santa Claus is real in school. At no point should kids be lied to for any reason.

 

The reason creationism is popular is that allows complete idiots to feel important because they get to reveal an important "truth" that can only be revealed by them. They don't have to study to learn this truth all they have to is be stupid and hear it from someone else who is stupid.

 

Creationists take great pleasure in trying to make evolution and the people that think it is the way the Earth and the life on the earth have come about look stupid. I've quietly sat in on discussions about this among the stupid faithful. They tell their kids lies on top of lies to try and denigrate real learning and intelligence. Kids need the truth.

[pamela]

well......I do not think you are being very kind here Moontanman. I love these as you put it "stupid people", many are family members and friends. I can attest to their intelligence, and reserve the understanding that maybe that do not have all the answers. Religion has a way of blind siding common sense, and although this is unfortunate, it remains true.

Presenting all types of religions, not just Christianity, would broaden the minds of students. Of course, it would need to be objective.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. I would not suppress it, or any belief system's fundamentals.The world is a vast place with many ideas and concepts that are worthy of investigating, if only for the reason of understanding humanity and furthering the human cause

[Moontanman]

well......I do not think you are being very kind here Moontanman. I love these as you put it "stupid people", many are family members and friends. I can attest to their intelligence, and reserve the understanding that maybe that do not have all the answers. Religion has a way of blind siding common sense, and although this is unfortunate, it remains true.

Presenting all types of religions, not just Christianity, would broaden the minds of students. Of course, it would need to be objective.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. I would not suppress it, or any belief system's fundamentals.The world is a vast place with many ideas and concepts that are worthy of investigating, if only for the reason of understanding humanity and furthering the human cause

 

 

If you want to teach belief systems in school I have no problem with it, in a philosophy class. Evolution is not a belief system, it's science, based on evidence. Creationism is a belief, it has no facts, no evidence of facts, nothing what so ever to back it up but a bunch of people who are either too lazy or too stupid to do anything but believe that they are told because it allows them to feel special and above everyone who disagrees with them, especially intelligent people who they are jealous of. This stead fast belief in religion is dangerous, people are willing to kill over there beliefs. Religion has come up against science at every point in the human existence and religion always looses. Religion should keep to it's side of the street before science kicks it's *** again.

[pamela]

what I am saying is to not suppress any of it. All should be taught objectively, especially religion. I am not suggesting a class of evolution versus creationism. I am simply stating that all information should be found in the curriculum. Theology and sciences classes can dissect the information.

I see that you have added lazy to stupid as well;)

[Galapagos]

As far as "teaching both" and letting children decide, debate, or apply critical thinking to issues mythology/magic vs. science... I think Massimo Pigliucci summed the response to this up well when addressing Sara Palin's views on "teaching both" :

 

Now this is disingenuous at best. Education is not about having “kids debate both sides,” since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you. :friday: We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny.

 

According to criterion (a), “teaching both” isn’t going to cut it, because creationism is simply not even in the ballpark of the best ideas ever produced by humanity. On the contrary, it is superstitious nonsense that harks back to an earlier era of ignorance about how the world works. But things aren't much rosier for creationists under criterion ( either, despite all the talk about “teaching the controversy.” Learning critical thinking is not a matter of being exposed to a “fair and balanced” view of everything and be told “you decide.” Rather, it proceeds through learning about logic, about assessing evidence, and about the many ways in which human senses and reasoning abilities can fail us if we are not on guard. If students really do assimilate all of that, just one look at creationist claims would make it painfully clear that they don’t need to be further entertained.

 

If we're going to teach creationism in school it either needs to be in a class about religion or mythology. Allowing equal scientific discussion of creationism is the equivalent of allowing serious discussion of alchemy, astrology, and the theory that the moon is made out of cheese.

[pamela]

well said Galapagos,

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

[Essay]

I hope nobody thinks I'm in any way advocating for the teaching of Creationism or ID in the classroom.

 

There's plenty of rote memorization that can be done with science and literature, ...as well as (elsewhere) the Bible.

I only mentioned it as a chance to try the little joke about Genes Is vs. Genesis.

 

I don't even understand how one would teach these in the science classroom.

To me, ID is about origins, and Evolution is about the process occurring after the origin; two very different things.

 

As a part of a survey of religions class, or a philosophy of science class, they would be fine I suppose; but what purpose can they serve in a science classroom.

===

 

Well, I see I'm just echoing the wisdom of others here... sorry.

But, I wanted to clarify my "rote memorization" comment.

~ :friday: