Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

Hi Nirvana,As you can see, there has been some resistance to your proposal to eliminate the teaching of both creation and evolution.My main criticism would be your reasoning - to avoid controversy among students.
One of the most important things you willl learn in school is how to deal with controversy, how controversy stimulates thought and is essential for scientific progress.The second, but perhaps more relevant, criticism is that you are implicitly giving creationism and evolutionary theory the same merit.
ToE is an ESSENTIAL cornerstone of all biological sciences, both in their theory and their application. Creationism is simply a myth.Just because some people are upset with the inferences of ToE with respect to their decision to have faith in a myth doesn't mean we should deny kids access to a proper science education. And you can't have a proper science education without some training in ToE.
It is not possible, so your proposal would be a disservice to the larger enterprise of science.As others have noted, there is really nothing to 'teach' about creationism anyway. It's basically 6 days of 'Poof' God created this, and 'Poof', God created that. You certainly won't be needing any higher order mathematics skills. On the other hand, there are so many corrolaries, implications and nuances to ToE that many people spend their whole lives collecting and analyzing data just to advance tiny branches of it to higher levels of understanding. Creationism doesn't give you any kind of explanatory mechanisms to work with or extrapolate, no framework for investigation or increasing the knowledge base of any discipline. If you really seek higher levels of understanding about living things, you must study how evolution works - there is no other framework that makes sense. Evolution is as essential to biology as Newtonian physics and Quantum mechanics is to the physical sciences.

That is simply not going to happen.
You seem to ignore the fact that evolution is a highly successful model for predicting the course of changes we actually observe happening in the natural world all the time. Those of us working in various applied disciplines of biology, anyway. If it wasn't we wouldn't use it as the foundation for breeding better crops, preventing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. etc. And it's not like there are any viable alternatives to choose from. ID doesn't 'explain' anything, anymore than creation does. It's just science versus mythology.And your earlier comment about organisms adapting to change but not changing into different species is not valid either.
At some point changes between populations are sufficient that they don't constitute the same gene pool anymore. This is reproductive isolation. At that point, they have separate evolutionary fates. They may not look different at first, but they inevitably become more and more different either by selection or purely by chance, because there is no more gene flow. Speciation is just a continued extrapolation of the same process of change that occurs within species. The differences possible after speciation have virtually no limits. Don't let the creationists tell you otherwise.ABE (to return to topic)SOOOO... if you deny students a chance to study evolutionary theory - you deny them access to real scientific understanding that is not only very useful, but very powerful. And go ahead, let them teach 'about' the creation myth if you want (there's sure not much to teach) - JUST DON'T TRY AND CALL IT SCIENCE.This message has been edited by EZscience, 02-20-2006 04:01 PM

Well you can't assume everyone in Kansas is a Bible-thumping creationsist. That would be like assuming we are all Republican ! There are *tons* of examples of direct observation of speciation in progress. Try this one here for starters....and don't come back and say they are still the same *kind* of bird !

I just noticed this story on BBC this morning."US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution."I find it interesting that the one ID proponent quoted, a supposed biology teacher in Missouri, wants to teach students about ID because "if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society."This is, in essence, the same objection of creationists to the fact that evolution is not a 'directed' process and therefore negates the need for a 'guiding hand of God'. If people don't believe in a designer, then their life will somehow be lacking a higher purpose and their behavioral standards will deteriorate.What needs recognition here is that science does not in any way aim to dictate human morality (as religion does), it only infers logical, naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena. It is only those who wish to transpose their own religious and societal ideals on everyone else in a very unscientific manner that are the hold-out objectors to teaching principles of evolutionary theory.

That's the whole point. If a theory is not provable by experiment it is not a 'solid' (=valid) scientific theory. To be a scientific, it must be possible to disprove a theory. That is why ID and creationism don't cut it. They don't set up any framework for experimentation. They don't say 'measure these things and such and such a pattern should be evident'. Maybe you're not looking in the right places.
I work as a research scientist in applied ecology and the more I observe, the more complex I usually find things are than I originally thought they were. Sorry, but you can't combine science with non-science and expect higher orders of understanding to emerge. I suspect you are seeking answers to questions of 'final origins' and it is important to remember that evolutionary theory does not address such questions. It is an entirely mechanistic set of explanations. About final origins? Yes.
About the mechanisms of how living things change? No. We are very close to a near-complete understanding (well - some of us anyway ).However, within the larger context of scientific endeavor your proposition can only be considered unacceptably defeatist.
Not being statisfied with 'not knowing' is precisely what has always driven intelligent people to become scientists.

The scientific term is 'adaptation'.
Are you inferring that the process of adaptation has some imaginary limits? Becuase the accumulation of differential adaptations is exactly how species diverge once their gene pools are separate (with some chance effects also involved). So speciation starts in many cases with changes in behaviors that are important in sexual reproduction, like the bird songs. Yes, there are influences of local conditions molding local adaptations, but the *consequences* of these differences between populations can be (1) reproductive isolation of populations and (2) accumulation of even more differences between them. There is no rationale for setting any upper limit on how different things (populations, species, higher taxa, etc.) can eventually become. You will come to appreciate this if you look at the 'Define kinds' thread. No one has yet come up with a meaningful definition of a 'kind' becasue it isn't a scientific concept. It is a concept used to obfuscate and avoid proper taxonomic terminology that does have a scientific basis.

I don't mean 'complete understanding' in the sense of having recognized all nuances of the process of evolution in every biological context.I mean 'complete' in the sense that the major parameters and processes are well described and understood. I don't think we are going to see a paradigm shift that shakes the foudnations of evolutionary theory, although there may be some important and interesting corollaries of ToE that are yet to be elucidated.

Yes, now that there is increased recognition of the full range of mechanisms whereby viruses and bacteria are capable of exchanging genetic information ACROSS species boundaries, it does seem to muddy the biological species concept, but I don't think it should. I would emphasize that cross-species exchanges of genetic information are (1) relatively rare events compared to conventional exchange of genes through sexual reproduction (2) very different from normal heredity of genetic information, and (3) typically involve transfers of a few genes, not the entire complement of information required to produce an organism as occurs during normal sexual reproduction.I also understand your concerns about the difficulties posed by asexual populations that appear to retain species identities without a shared gene pool. However, the biological species concept is still relevant. You can point out that (1) 98 % of all higher multicellular organisms are obligately amphimictic (must outbreed sexually), (2) most higher organisms that reproduce asexually either (a) were at one time sexual and evolved asexuality secondarily (typically in response to conditions that favor rapid reproduction of identical genotypes) or (b) continue to reproduce sexually under some conditions or at certain times of the year, eg. aphids. Plants are useful examples here also. Vegetative reproduction is very common among higher plants, but most still produce flowers and retain sexual capacities (and thus integrity as biological species) even if many are capable of selfing when pollen from other individuals is not available. Sexual reproduction has been, and remains, a cornerstone in the evolutionary trajectory of all higher organisms and the concept of a species as a shared gene pool is still one of the most critical and useful in modern theoretical population biology. Unfortunately, theory on the evolution of sexual reproduction itself is probably too complex to do justice to at a sophomore level.

quote:

---

A multiplicity of natural, biological systems exhibit complexity that could not have arisen through natural, evolutionary processes.

---

Says who? Some peabrain with a religious agenda and a lousy M.A. degree ?

quote:

---

...the Intelligent Design movement has begun to gain major footholds in academic circles.

---

Not in the 'academic circles' I travel in, that's for sure.

quote:

---

Biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes.

---

From whence this sweeping conclusion? Just because it has not yet been replicated experimentallly doesn't mean it cannot occur.

quote:

---

...intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example..

---

Actually, their assumption is merely that an intelligent communication would be *recognizable* if they could detect it - and they haven't.

quote:

---

Another example of testing for intelligence would be that of the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) test designed to measure intelligence scientifically.

---

Oh yeah - there's a great example. This is not an example of 'testability' in the scientific sense. IQ testing is merely a rather primitive attempt at intelligence *quantification* - in very relative terms, I might add - nothing is being 'tested' in the sense of falsifying or supporting a hypothesis. What total bunk.

quote:

---

In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism.

---

It certainly withstands this pathetic attempt at criticism.
This article is just a load of missleading religious propaganda masquerading as some kind of science argument.

Thanks SNC, I will be sure to check for that article.
It sounds consistent with a lot of what we are seeing lately.AbE:I found that article and it was so good I came back to post a direct link to it. Greetings from Idiot Amercia Everyone interested in the topic of this thread should read this excellent article. It certainly puts the OP question in the context it deserves, one of contemplation by idiots only.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-11-2006 01:13 PM

Hi Lupin - welcome to EvC.
Kansas needs all the science defenders it can get...

That's not one out of two - its zero.
Pray tell what would you teach? "Goddidit" - that's it?
That's supposed to be some sort of explanation?You are constitutionally free to spout that pathetic tripe in Sunday School, but you are not constitutionally free to label it as SCIENCE.
Thankfully we still reserve that right for actual acredited scientists, although its questionable for how much longer that will remain the case in "Idiot America".
Creationism is a simple-minded myth for simple-minded people - its not an explanation of anything. It's an excuse for NOT thinking hard about anything, ergo it appeals to those who have difficulty thinking hard about anything...
They naturally gravitate to the simpleton's non-explanation.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-12-2006 08:52 PM

Surely you don't mean Gould's book?

Gagged are they? They seem plenty vocal to me.
And you are unjustifiably equating a methodological process (science) with a belief system like religion - which is the only way you can justify your attack on the process whihc you feel compelled to do because it produces results you don't like (evolutionary reasoning).Nothing is rammed down anyone's throats in science class.
A methodology is taught and scientific inferences are discussed.
You guys are tho ones who want to ram things down people's throats by shoe-horning in your christian dogma where it doesn't belong.
Keep it in the churches and do your brainwashing of your own children there. We have no objections. Unfortunately, the 'majority' for the most part, consists of a bunch of sheep with little or no education.
What about when the majority is wrong?
That's why science is NOT a democratic process.
If it were, we'd still be in the stone age - but I guess we'd still have churches. Science IS the issue. Creationism is NOT science and religion is NOT education. Can't you bring yourself to accept that?
The 'beliefs' you think are associated with science are a figment of your own imagination, simply because you construe the implications of certain theories as a contradiction to your own beliefs. Tolerating the majority viewpoint is a lot more scary.
The majority usually isn't very smart, and if you are their acting spokesperson, you are only proving my point with your ridiculous arguments to substitute science with religion.You essentially want the right to legislate stupidity if stupidity is what the majority wants (which is questionable, even for the Christian majority).

Yes, a right to believe whatever they want, and a right to vote for school board members to represnet them. That's about where it ends. They don't have the right to decide what is or isn't science. Precisely. They have freedom of speech. Not the right to determine what constitutes a science curriculum. You'd have to be pretty well informed about science in order to make that statement, and that's not what we're seeing here. OK whisper, you are so all-fired 'majority says this' and 'majority wants that', consider for a moment what your attitude would be if your country wasn't a Chistian majority. There are plenty of countries where christians are a minority. If that were the case, wouldn't you want your government to protect your right to teach christian dogma to your christian community's children in their own church? Wouldn't that seem reasonable to you? You wouldn't want some to come in and say, 'you can only teach christian dogma if you also teach this other alternative dogma', would you?Well think of it this way. The science classroom is like the church of secular intellect and reason. And even though secular intellect and reason is currently in the minority (horrifically so, in this country), it shouldn't be victimized and butchered by those who don't understand it just because they happen to be a majority. You have to put your self in the minority position before you start throwing your 'majority' weight around....and I truly doubt you speak for the majority of Christians with this kind of extremism anyway, but I guess I'll have to wait for one to show up and tell you so. Although you've probably embarassed most of them by now...