Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Obviously, people can decide to believe whatever they want to, even complete and utter nonsensical lies. They do have that right. Even students in science class.But that has nothing to do with the purpose of science education; from From the Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, 1990, , Anti-Dogmatism Statement (my emphasis added):

quote:

---

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

---

and later in the same framework document:

quote:

---

We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.

---

To illustrate that point, I have often pointed out that when I was in the US Air Force during the Cold War we were given classes in Marxism and Communism where were obviously not for the purpose of compelling us to become Marxists or Communists, but rather for us to know more about the enemy. Promote understand, not compel belief.Mike's confusion seems typical of creationists because the primary purpose of Christian education is indoctrination which requires that the students believe in what they are being taught, which is completely different from the purpose of public school education as stated above. And indeed, in every instance of a "balanced treatment" creationist class that I've heard of, the creationist materials would pressure the students to choose between their "unnamed Creator (nudge-nudge-wink-wink)" and "atheistic evolution", which would usually be reinforced by the creationist teacher. Flagrant use of the public schools to proselytize. In my own public school experience, especially in science classes, old theories would routinely be presented first in order to provide historical background for the development of the current theories, including heliocentrism, phlogiston, and flat-earthism (often including the misconception that that's what everybody thought at the time, though some did include how Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the spherical earth circa 200 BCE).Regardless of what the students want to believe or reject, they would still be held responsible for understanding the ideas and theories that they choose to reject. Because -- yet again -- the goal is that they understand the subject matter regardless of what they believe.However, a "balanced treatment" type of class could provide an ideal opportunity to refute nonsense like "creation science", so such a class would provide the perfect opportunity to present those teachings and demonstrate exactly why they are false. Of course, that is not at all the outcome that creationists want, but if you're going to have to conduct a two-model class, then you may as well do it right! And part of that would be to do what no self-aware creationist would ever do: actually present the "creation model" and allow it to be examined. Remember, all that creationism does is to misrepresent evolution and other parts of science and then attack those misrepresentations, but never will they ever present their "creation model" nor, when their critics present it for them, will they ever discuss, support, or defend it.One well-known true two-model class was taught by two professors at San Diego State University, Roger Awbrey and William Thwaites -- the campus bookstore used to sell copies of the class notes, but I don't know whether they still do. I am not certain of the precise dates, but the class was conducted during the 1980's and around or after 1990 the university cancelled the course under immense pressure from campus Christian clubs protesting against the class.And why did they hate that class so vehemently? Because it gave equal time to creationism and allowed the students to learn what creationism actually taught, what science taught, and what the evidence actually shows. I think that they also took a poll of the students' positions at the beginning and at the end of the course and creationism lost ground every time.At the time, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) was still in El Cajon, about 20-30 miles away from the campus. Not only was the ICR the foremost creationist organization at the time such that to know anything about creationist claims you needed to turn to the ICR (and they were the stars of the creation debate circuit), but they were the founders of "creation science" and Dr. Henry Morris was "The Father of Flood Geology". They were the pros from Dover. And they provided the creationism lectures in the Awbrey and Thwaites' course.So, basically the class was divided with half the lectures being presented by guest speakers from the ICR (including Henry Morris and Duane Gish (M&D), the real stars) and half the lectures by Awbrey and Thwaites (A&T). As I recall from reading (I could be wrong on the order), the ICR would present their lecture on a particular topic and A&T would participate in the Q&A. Then in the next lecture, A&T would present the actual science behind that topic. Or maybe it would be the other way around, but either way the creationist claims would be open for examination, especially against the actual science and the actual evidence. That provided the students with all the information so that they could make an informed decision. And that is why the campus Christians hated that class so much: it exposed the facts about creationism that creationists depend on keeping secret to that they can deceive their victims into converting.Over the decades, I've used a few of the notes in discussion. Such as their list of distinguishing characteristics of birds and coelosaur dinosaurs and showing that Archaeopteryx' characteristics is a mixture of purely coelosaur characteristics, purely avian characteristics, and a number of characteristics that are intermediate between coelosaurs and birds. Also in response to probability arguments that assume that every single amino acid in a protein must be specified, I've used their notes showing that only a small number of loci must have a specific amino acid, some others can have any of a particular type of amino acid, and many other loci can have any amino acid.The class is also where a common claim by Duane Gish was soundly refuted in public. The creationist claim about the bombadier beetle is that the chemicals it uses explode spontaneously when mixed together, so it needs another chemical to inhibit that and then another to ignite it when needed -- claim's bottom line is that such a set-up could never evolve since all beetles would have exploded before evolving the inhibitor. A&T demonstrated that that claim was false by mixing them together and no explosion. Gish stuttered and stammered something about a mistranslation, but for years thereafter that claim remained in common use even by Gish (who later finally made some vague "corrections" while retaining the original claim).So, if a class makes appropriate use of presenting "competing theories" to show what those "competing theories" actually are about and why they are wrong, then that could be worthwhile. Unfortunately, there's usually not enough class time to devote to actual science, so the students will suffer from time wasted on "competing theories". Also, too many science teachers would not be qualified to do a proper job of using such training opportunities (eg, one of my younger son's science teachers was the home economics teacher performing a collateral duty).

I’ve always been particularly amused by this creationist claim. The explosive chemical the bombardier beetle uses is just good old hydrogen peroxide, i. e., H2O2. H2O2, on exposure to heat or a catalyst breaks down int H2O and O2 in a fairly exothermic reaction, i.e., it generates hot steam (along with some oxygen). H2O2 is so dangerous that you can buy it in any drug store - no explosives permit or prescription needed. It is sold in a low concentration solution (5% to 10%) to be used as a mouthwash (saliva catalyses its decomposition yielding O2, a strong foamy antiseptic) or as a germicide to splash on wounds - about $1 a pint. At that low concentration it does not become dangerous hot. Our bodies; your, mine, Duane Gish’s, and all microbes, produce small quantities of H2O2 used in a variety of biochemical reactions (well, maybe not Duane Gish’s since he’s dead). The beetle catalyses the breakdown of H2O2 using a protein, ejected at the same time as the H2O2 so they are not combined in the beetles body, that is probably used for several other reactions.My experience with H2O2 comes from my career as a systems engineer on a major satellite program. The boosters for our satellite, when ignited (actually using an automobile spark plug), have to almost instantly pump massive amounts of fuel and oxidizer into the rocket combustion chamber and do this using a centrifugal pump driven by a turbine that itself is driven by passing high concentration H2O2 (80% to 90%) over a catalyst bed, i.e., it is effectively a steam turbine.I have always wondered what is going through the minds of people like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (well, maybe not Gish since he’s dead) when they repeat an argument that they have already agreed is fallacious.

Oh, that's easy.They're thinking, Just placate this science devil so he’ll go away and not see me using this same lie to flimflam this crowd of rubes here. There’s still plenty of suckers to con once he’s out of earshot.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that kids should be taught that the existence of birds, mammals, reptiles etc. is a complete scientific mystery with no evidenced explanation?

---

Yes, of course. Anything else is fraud.

The stupid is strong with this one.Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan AcademyFive Proofs of Evolution | Evolution FAQ Evidence of Evolution - Species, Similar, Organisms, and Evolutionary - JRank Articles What Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution? - dummiesDarwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence | Live ScienceIf you want more evidenced explanations of evolution, let me know. There are, literally, thousands of these.

Well that is quite a claim. The entirety of established science regarding common ancestry and the origin of species is to be discarded because.......you have a mathematical model...?Is that what you are saying?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It happens to be the correct model for DNA evolution and every real, measurable, and repeatable example of DNA evolution correlates with this mathematics. Try to find an example that doesn't obey this math.

Not sure why you spam a bunch of links. Try posting a sentence or paragraph from a link and debate that, using a link only as a source we can check.
By the way, I am aware of the created trait of being able to adapt and evolve, so evolution is not an issue at all. Where evolving started or stopped is an issue. The TOE has no clue what evolved from what, or when or why, and has piled error on false belief and baseless assumptions, while totally misunderstanding the fossil record, genetics and other basics.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

So more than 200 years of observation and study by thousands of very smart people is all wrong because why? Because you say so?Is this going to be like the tree ring thing where you have no evidence of all this wrongness either? Yeah, we're not supposed to throw bare links out there but your deficiencies are just so broad and deep.You were the one who said the existence of birds, mammals, reptiles etc. is a complete scientific mystery with no evidenced explanation. Those links are just a few of the evidenced explanations you seemed to have missed in your education on evolution.You’re going to have go self-taught on this subject since I am not, and I doubt anyone else on this forum is, inclined to give you a couple semesters of basic evolutionary theory over an internet forum.You're not that important and I'm too fuckin lazy.

In the interest of providing a readable thread for the benefit of past,present and future peanut galleries, I will help AZPaul provide you with an argument. I also would be interested to know precisely the sources where you get your information. Perhaps we can have a basic discussion on this topic. Five Proofs of EvolutionLinks to sources can be found at the original link. Do me a favor and provide your basic sources for your claims and we can all then have access to discuss the basic credibility of our respective sources.

I would like you (dad) to spam a few links of your own. Lets get to the bottom of where we all get our information. Pretend I am an impressionable student. Say that I know your kids. Explain to me what you have studied and show me your sources. I guess I dont understand this claim either. Can you more fully explain it to me? Show me a few bare links also. I am eager to learn.

I have examined some of your links and see that you do seem to have a disciplined counter-argument which few people here take seriously. Im curious as to why. I am also curious as to why nobody here at EvC takes you seriously. And why do they call you a "creationist"? I found you on the internet. You dont look wacky to me. Alan Kleinman
This is you, is it not?Also did you see the link that AZPaul threw at dad and which I brought out?It had one basic question related to your field of study which I thought to be interesting. Comments?

That's me. So now that I'm exposed you might as well know that I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering as well as an MD degree. I'm also licensed in both fields. I have experience solving and have published solutions to complex mathematical problems.With respect to my work being taken seriously, some do, obviously, the peer-reviewers and editors who publish my papers take this work seriously. And so do the librarians at the National Library of Medicine which list my papers. But you have to understand that old ideas die hard. Especially by people so intensely indoctrinated into their belief system and those who don't abide by those beliefs can be kicked-out of the academic system. But the fact is, the people who run biology departments do not understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. My major field in Mechanical Engineering is Thermodynamics, yet Taq will argue with me about which law of thermodynamics that applies to DNA evolution. It is the second law of thermodynamics that applies to DNA evolution, not the first law.But be patient, the truth will win, it will take time but it will happen. All that is required for drug-resistant variants to appear in a population is for the population to become large enough. The Lenski experiment demonstrated that when he tested for drug-resistant variants in his founders' population and detected drug-resistant variants to many different antibiotics even though the ancestral populations were never exposed to the drugs. The reason this happened was the ancestral populations were grown in a much larger carrying capacity environment without starvation pressure. This allows the population sizes necessary for these variants to appear. Note, as the Lenski experiment progressed, most of the drug-resistant variants disappeared (selected out) because drug-resistant variants were not as fit as the "wild-type" drug-sensitive variants in the starvation selection pressure environment.That is also what is being demonstrated in the Kishony experiment. Taq correctly computed that it takes 3e9 replications (on average) for the drug-resistant variant to appear. Kishony's environment rather than killing all the drug-sensitive variants, select for those drug-resistant variants by the niches that have an increasing concentration of the drug. But each evolutionary step requires 3e9 replications. The significance of this to the theory of evolution is that each evolutionary transitional step takes at a minimum, billions of replications. This is not what is seen in the fossil record. For example, there are about 50 complete t Rex fossils and they were apex predators. Yet, each transitional mutation of a reptile to a bird would take billions of replications. You have far more t Rex fossils which didn't exist in the billion than so-called transitional fossils where each transitional step takes a billion replications. The fossil record does not show proof of the theory of evolution, it gives proof counter to that theory. The genetic record also contradicts the theory of evolution, that is if you understand how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly.

I guess i'm at a loss here. If we throw out the traditional ToE, what will we replace it with? A NEW ToE? Creationism? Intelligent Design? What are your conclusions so far?

Good Lord. I bow to thee because of Yer exceptional qualifications. Now we are going to have to accept that Kleinman knows exactly why all those guys who have been working on dating the Theewaterskloof Formation all are wrong. Just because Kleinman has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and is an MD and is licensed in both!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.