Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

In our country, the prevailing law is that every child is to be provided with a free education. You can opt out of this, of course, by being home-schooled or by going to private school. Anyway, the public schools are funded by the American people as a whole (taxpayers). Since this is a public program put forth by the government, it has to follow the Constitution of the United States of America. That includes the Bill of Rights. Although some people argue that the 1st Amendment does not put up a wall between church and State, the framers of the Constitution and the Courts say that there definitely is a separation of church and State. So, religion, aka creationism, cannot be taught in public school science classes b/c it would endorse a single religion over others.However, evolution is a scientific theory that has lasted for 145 years despite the most rigorous testing. In fact, evolution continues to be strenghtened every day. Parts of evolution are now considered fact--common descent, for instance. Only the mechanisms are still theoretical.Whether a scientific issue is controversial or not does not have any bearing on the evidence that supports the issue. Nor does controversy decide what is science or not. Evolution is central to biology. Biology should not even be taught if evolution is not included in the curriculum. Yes, it is that important!As a biology teacher, I have a responsibility to my students and the community to teach biology. Evolution is the central tenent of biology. If controversy arises, I, as a teacher, have to deal with it in a way that does not belittle the subjective beliefs of my students but still provides the objective facts about life on Earth. I actually try to prevent any controversy by teaching the nature of science to my students. Unfortunately, I find that problems arise with other teachers b/c they do not define what science deals with--naturalistic processes that can be tested. The existence of a god or gods is not testable, nor is it falsifiable. Therefore, it falls outside the realm of science. Whether my students believe in a supernatural being or not has no bearing on my teaching of science. And it shouldn't.Taking evolution out of the biology curriculum against the recommendations of professional organizations and universities would be insane. Remember, science is what scientists do. Science is not what politicians or special interest groups want it to do.

I agree that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Creationism is a response to evolution. As with any argument, evidence for each side is presented and then we decide the winner. Evolution is clearly the champion.I would like to verify that I do not think that creationism is on an equal footing with evolution. When I say that I have to be sensitive to the subjective beliefs of my students, that is all I am--sensitive to what they believe. However, it is my duty to point out how wrong it is to include subjective belief in objective science. When religion steps into the realm of science and makes claims that can be tested, those religious beliefs are fair game for peer review. And, as most of us know, peer review can be brutal. There is no room for wimps here. But we have to be brutal in order to flesh out the objective truth.Others have said that science is not democratic. How right they are! And when the president sides with teaching ID because of the "fairness" issue, we know that he is just playing pipes for his conservative christian base. Notice that no one has put forth a national law lately that involves evolution. Even Rick Santorum (who I never voted for while I lived in PA) had his amendment squashed by a Republican dominated Senate when NCLB was voted on.So, I contend that creationism/ID will always be with us. There will always be groups that think evolution is anti-god and dangerous, but hopefully they will eventually become a side-show like the Flat Earth Society.

Why is evolution still being taught if it is not 100% correct or 100% proven or whatever degree of certainty you require? Well, let's see...1)It is a theory (well, many interconnected theories) that has been supported by the available evidence since its publication in 1859! (Yes, I know that the amount of time that an idea is accepted should not be used to verify to its acceptance. I am just pointing out the viability and vitality of the theory.)2)The ToE is very good a what it does--explaining natural phenomena and making accurate predictions. For instance, every fossil we find and correctly date adds to the pile of evidence and is predicted to be where we find that fossil.3)The ToE is falsifiable. Has it been falsified yet? NO!!!4)The ToE is incredibly useful. Since the introduction of modern genetics, we have been able to unlock the history of the DNA of many organisms and their relationships to other organisms. I am not saying that we would not have this knowledge of these genomes w/o evolution, but the ToE tells us where and what to look for. These relationships are crucial in many fields--agriculture and immunology for example.5)Any claim that is w/in or supports the ToE is throughly criticized through peer-review. As with the rest of science, hoaxes don't last.6)All other alternatives to evolution have been debunked. Yes, even creationism and ID have been flattened!I teach evolution b/c it is essential to any understanding of the history of life on Earth. I teach evolution b/c it is science. I teach evolution b/c it is incredibly well-supported by the scientific evidence. I teach evolution b/c my students deserve a good science education. I teach evolution b/c it is what it explains--naturalistic processes that can be tested and left to stand on the merits of the evidence. I teach evolution b/c it is the only scientifically viable answer. The proof is all around us--in genes and DNA, in fossils, in embryology, in homologous body structures, etc. You seem to think that just b/c we cannot do something now, we won't eventually be able to do it! Yet, even if we did do it, people cry foul b/c we did it and it wasn't natural! Science provides possible explanations for past phenomena. For example, just b/c the gases in the Miller/Urey experiment were wrong, people throw the findings away. That is not how science operates. Scientists change and improve the experiments to better replicate what most likely happened. Other experiments since Miller/Urey have shown that organic compounds can develop under numerous different circumstances with various materials and energy sources. When you get a chance, take a look at what happens around the black smokers on the ocean floor! (I know this is abiogenesis and not necessary for the ToE to be true, but I think it is a good example and appropriate based on the previous discussions.)The thing that surprises me most is the lack of wonder on the part of people who expound on the wonders of their creator! I am not religious (although I once was), but the shear reliance on revelation to guide the human spirit at the expense of our senses is a damning rebuke of who we are and who we can become! Who do you want to be?

I teach the barriers to mating when we get to classification. Does that get this back on topic?Anyway, I teach the biological species concept, but I find that it breaks down when we talk about bacteria. Also, asexually reproducing organisms don't necessarily fall into the bsc either. However, if we take other things into account that point to two organisms being or not being the same, such as genetic info and interspecific and intraspecific behaviors and competition, then we can better define what a species is.Any ideas on how to teach high school sophomores and freshmen about species without becoming too bogged down in the exceptions? Thanks!BTW, creationism doesn't offer a better explanation when it comes to delineating species. It just says that god created the species individually basically in the forms that we find them today. Talk about dodging the question! One more reason to not include it in biology class. I think if creationist/ID proponants would look into how much trouble teaching these ideas would be and how they do not fit into any biological framework that makes sense, these misguided souls would stop trying to muddy the intelligence of our youth with their worries about salvation and not pissing off some god.

Children are taught about the major religions of the world in social studies classes. They don't get into detail about creation myths of the major religions b/c there are too many other important things to teach about other cultures in the 180 days of instruction time we are given. Well, with testing now, our days of real instruction are down to about 2!!!Anyway, as a biology teacher, I teach about science as a method and that method is based on evidence. You can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make your belief logical, correct or morally right or wrong. Our society is one that likes to spout out opinion as if it were fact regardless of or in ignorance of the evidence. By teaching students that there is actual historical merit to one creation story or the other regardless of the evidence is a practice in intellectual dishonesty. Even when people say that students should be exposed to all possibilities, these people are merely trying to sound "fair" in order to get what they want taught into public schools. In order to truly be fair, the arguments against religious creation stories should be presented as well.For example, the "sage", Vet, of our biology group had a student who constantly bemoaned evolution and natural selection throughout every lesson Vet had taught. One day, Vet told him to type up a list of his arguments against evolution. The student did and Vet wrote them on the board under an "Against" title. Vet then wrote down next to each argument the evidence against the students arguments. When looked at on the board, all I saw were great scientific points against what were actually pretty staid creationist arguments. The student's constant sniping stopped and the rest of the class said that they learned a lot from the exercise in debate.Creation stories are entertaining and give us an idea of how cultures think and why they sometimes do what they do. However, the stories in and of themselves are just opinion of how primative and developing cultures explained natural phenomena that they could not at the time. How those stories relate to what is going on now is important, but by themselves, they are just stories.By saying that students should decide everything for themselves is a dangerous statement. Do we want more people who think that their opinion is the truth? Or do we want well informed citizens who know the difference between fact and opinion?

First off, facts are self-evident.EXAMPLE: The grass is green. You can see that it is green. OK, a color-blind person cannot see that it is green. So, grind up the grass, put it in a spectrophotometer, and it will allow you to observe that the green wavelengths of light are transmitted. So, even a color-blind person can "see" that the grass is green!Facts are facts. Let's not confuse opinion with fact. Unlike opinions, facts cannot be A and non-A at the same time. The nice thing about science is that it is inherently self-correcting due to peer review. If there is a mistake or a hoax, it can eventually be found out. I am not sure what you mean by "properly" interpreted. Do you realize how much evidence you would need to support the validity of a creation story!?! And how would you gather this evidence, especially if you credit a creator or intelligent designer of some kind!?! How could this supernatural entity do anything in our natural and material universe!?! This statement is a blatant cop-out! Can you recall any positive arguments for creation off of the top of your head? I can think of several lines of arguments against the role of a supernatural being creating the universe. If there was any credible scientific evidence against evolution, then evolution would no longer be a credible scientific theory. It's been around for almost 150 years and is constantly being affirmed and strengthened. However, as Biblical archeology moves along, more and more Old and New Testament stories are being invalidated. Creation can never fit in with science. Science deals with studying natural phenomena that can be tested and are falsifiable. Creation posits a supernatural creator. The existence of a supernatural creator cannot be tested nor is it falsifiable. There is no way to reconcile science with anything supernatural while still calling it science.