Science in Public Schools

Having read through some of the articles in these forums, I have noticed strong evidences which seem to support creation, global flood, young earth, etc. As long as such evidences are religion free (no Bible, no God, etc.), should they be admitted and taught in Public School Science Curricula?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It would be easier to answer your question if you could provide some examples of the evidences you mean.--Percy

how can you have creation without god? you can't teach that. and you can't say that it's a generalized creation because other religions' creation stories are completely different (and no, i'm not referring to the big three).so. if you can't teach that marduk squished man out of clay in science class, then you can't teach that some 'nameless' but christian based god did it either.

PERCY WROTE:
It would be easier to answer your question if you could provide some examples of the evidences you mean.[Jbthree] There's all kinds of evidences that don't support such things as biological evolution and an ancient earth. To start with, students could be taught that evolution is still a theory, not a fact. The fossil record supports this because it fails to provide the inbetween fossils that support the idea that life forms gradually evolved from one major specie to another. Students should be taught that gradualism theory is no longer accepted as the primary mechanism for evolution. For example the jury is still out on human evolution. There are only presumed links and there is no consensus even among evolutionists. If there are no links between man and his ancestors, the student is free to conclude that man appeared suddenly on earth.Another example: The jury is out on horse evolution. Yet, you go into museums where there are impressive displays showing them evolving from a fox-like creature. Niles Eldredge admitted that such displays are "regrettable." The truth about horse evolution is out there, but public school science teachers seem to be content just to go with the flow.Students should be challenged to consider if life forms appear on earth abruptly and formed with purpose and intelligence.There are so many other examples which students could be challenged with to research and see what they come up with.From the fossil record, you could go to more complex things like pleochroic halos which basically support a rapidly forming earth. This information is not taught to students and it should be.Let students hear all the data and make up their own minds instead of being told that evolution, or a multi-billion year old earth, are proven facts.

In your opening post you say: To support that statmenet you have to give evidence for those things. If you did find something that was against evolutionary theory and fact that wouldn't mean that any other particular idea was right.In any case, the evidences that you have given that you think are against evolutionary biology have been copied from creationist sites. They have all been discussed here before. Perhaps you could do some research on your own so you are prepared for the many rebuttals you are about to get.Personally, rather than get into too many details of evolutionary examples I suggest that you go to the dates and dating forum. The idea of "deep time" is an important part of our understanding of the earth and life on it. If you can show that to be wrong you will have a significant victory and probably don't have to worry about details of specific evolution.Note also that the origin of life is not part of evolution. Darwinian evolution only deals with living things however they got here. Maybe god made 'em maybe he didn't. Once they are here then and only then do we have evolutionary mechanisms. (Well, to be technical the dividing line might be rather blurred but that is a detail that you aren't ready for yet).Most of what you have posted is based on misunderstandings and lies you have been fed. I suggest that you back up and go slowly through it all.ABEAlso I'm not at all sure that each of these things should be discussed under the education banner. You might want to take each one and add it to an existing thread or propose new ones.If you actually have some positive evidence for any of the flood, young earth etc. then I would agree that might belong here.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-05-2005 17:32 AM

They are taught that evolution is a theory. It is, after all, a theory made out of facts. Wherever did you get such an idea? There's thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Who told you different? Actually, they shouldn't be, because there are no such things. There's almost no evidence that the halos you refer to are caused by radioactivity at all. As long as we stick with the facts, I agree. And one fact is that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the other facts. Another fact is that many of the "facts" creationists cite against evolution aren't factual in the least.Evolution, after all, is based on the facts. I would have no problem teaching those facts to students, and teaching them how evolution is the best explanation of those facts that we're aware of.

Ned's right ... you promised evidence for something, and all you came up with was unsupported allegations that something else is wrong. Not only that ... the allegations you came up with are old chestnuts. We've seen 'em all hundreds of times before, and they don't get any better with age. Excellent discussions are available in many places, especially An Index to Creationist Claims. But, in case you are interested in learning ... Evolutionis indeed a theory, about the highest distinction that any scientific idea can achieve. See Claim CA201Claim CC200Well, that's not quite correct, so they shouldn't be taught that; but they are taught that evolution is not a constant-rate process. So what? Sorry, the only jury that is still out on human evolution is comprised of those who refuse to consider the evidence. Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human EvolutionThere are some differences of opinion and some open questions. The consensus of those who have studied and evaluated the evidence is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancester, and so on all the way back to one common ancestor (or maybe a few common ancestors) of all life. Some details are still under investigation. The fact that horses evolved from a "fox-like" creature is not questioned by those who honetly study and evaluate the evidence. Horse Evolution. He said that displays that show the evolution of the horse as a stright and continuous line of changes are incorrect. He did not say that horse evolution itself is questionable. Quote: Niles Eldredge. All the evidence indicates that they don't. Sorry, just 'tain't so. Polonium Halo FAQsThey shouldn't be told that they are proven facts ... but they should be told that they are the only scientific explanationst that fit all the data, are as well-supported and understod as any scientific theory, and can be treated as facts for all practical purposes. And that's the truth!¹------------¹Edith Ann, 1972

Hi Jbthree,In your opening post you said: I asked for some examples of this evidence, and your response contained only arguments against evolution. I have much the same response as NosyNed: Where is the evidence for creation, global flood, young earth, etc.?I also agree with NosyNed that the [forum=-4] forum isn't the proper place for a discussion of these topics, but I was only looking for examples of the kind of evidence you were thinking of.The short answer to your question is that of course evidence for these things should be admissible in public school science classrooms, as long as that evidence is scientific. But science classes present the current concensus views of science, and the ideas you suggested are broadly rejected by the scientific community. Those ideas belong to a conservative branch of Christianity, not to science.The way for these ideas to gain representation in science classes is for Creationists to take them to the halls of science and persuade scientists. Once these ideas become the prevailing views within science, then they will quickly become represented in science classes.--Percy

Er, the halos are almost certainly caused by radioactivity; just not polonium radioactivity from polonium trapped in place when the rocks formed. There's lots of hypotheses about how they do form, and there may be several different processes operating. From "Polonium Haloes" Refuted:

quote:

---

Both Joly (1917) and Gentry (1992) discounted the possibility that beta particles may play a role in coloration changes within minerals; however, neither author gives a basis for this rejection beyond the erroneous statement that beta particle energies are too low to have any affect. High energy beta particles have the well documented ability to break molecular bonds. Combinations of alpha and beta decay particles, beta particles alone, or some completely non-radioactive process may be the cause of the observed mineral discoloration haloes. ...

​

An alternative possibility is explored by Brawley (1992) and Collins (1997). They note that many concentric ring haloes line up along visible fractures within the host mica. Such fractures are very common in mica crystals. Micro-fractures could provide conduits for the rapid movement and concentration of radon-222, a gaseous daughter product of uranium-238 which forms part way along the decay chain leading to polonium. Radon-222, itself an alpha emitter, has a half life of 3.82 days and is continuously produced in the decay of the parent uranium. Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). A distinct radon halo will not necessarily be identified s the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210 and the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished (Moazed, et al., 1973). ...

​

To reconcile his presumed young age for the Earth with reported isotopic age dates for rocks around the world, Gentry (1992) argues that radioactive decay rates have varied over time. He is forced to conclude that decay rates for polonium have remained constant while those of dozens of other radioactive isotopes were many orders of magnitude greater 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This of course gives rise to several major inconsistencies ...

​

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

---

BRENNAKIMI WROTE:
How can you have creation without god? you can't teach that. and you can't say that it's a generalized creation because other religions' creation stories are completely different (and no, i'm not referring to the big three). Soif you can't teach that marduk squished man out of clay in science class, then you can't teach that some 'nameless' but christian based god did it either.I propose the following evolutionists to be quoted in the introduction section of all Public School Science Curriculums that deal with the origins of life and evolution back in the Cambrian and Precambrian stages. Students can make up their own minds as to whether they believe a Creator (God) made all life forms, or if the evidence supporting evolution has yet to be found in the Cambrian and Precambrian.One of the major unsloved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine vertebrates in lower cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age. (D. Axelrod, Science 128:7, 1958)The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229)It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another. (Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd Edition, 1986, p.325)If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multi-cellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukariotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants. (Stefan Bengston, Nature, 345:765, 1990)The complex of historical events encompassing the origin and early evolution of Metazoa is at once the salient feature and the most unresolved bio-historical phenomenon in the history of life. It has been the single most perplexing issue since paleontology emerged as a scientific discipline in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (J.H. Lipps/P.W. Signor, Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa, 1992, pp.3-23).Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about 600 million years ago and continuing for about 10 to 15 million , the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today’s seas made a rather abrupt appearance. (Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Skeptic looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 44)Would you object to these quotes being included in the Public School Science Curriculum. Thanks

I would certainly object to thoise quotes being included without more up-to-date information and commentary explaining our current state of knowledge. We do know that ancestral forms did exist even if they are largely missing from the fossil record. We know because we have genetic and morphological evidence plus a few fossils (and more are being discovered).And since a text book will be used for a number of years any section on this material must state that research is continuing and that further progress is expected.Since I recently posted on the issue in another thread I suggest you read that for more information (and an important link): Re: Precambrian "explosion"

Quotes are not a lesson. Especially when someone is deliberately pulling them out of context to mislead. I know you didn't do it because you haven't read the original material involved.Let's look at some of them they all seem to be focussed on the same issue -- the Cambrian "explosion". However, I think that you will find, if you had up to date information, that there isn't so much of a problem as you might think after reading these quotes. To simply use these quotes alone would be very badly misleading. But I suspect that is the intention of your source.This is being discussed in the thread noted below. Any further discussion should be taken there. Note the date. This is not longer an unsolved problem.
See post 44 (and others ) in Creationist Friendly Q&ASince it is not longer a problem it might not be a good use of time in a high school classroom. However, some examples of the slow uncovering of evidence can be a good example of how science works.Using material this dated is disengenous at best. Where id you get it from? So? Just what does this say? Nothing but that Futuyma recognized that there must have been previous evolution going on. As noted above some of that has been found. This would only be put in to be misleading which would not be honest to the students unless a long time was taken to explain the context. I can't find my copy right now, but having read this book I suspect that a bit more reading will find that this is an even more dishonest quoting out of context. I'll leave this for later or another to clarify. The only untrue part that this would be baffling or embarassing to evolutionary biologists. Darwin might have, indeed, been very surprised since he didn't realize just how quickly evolution can unfold. However, I would have to see what evidence this individual is basing his statment on. If it was a mistaken idea of a very, very short explosion or lack of knowledge of any precambrian fossils then he was simply making a comment on the view at the time. His embarassing comment I don't see. Perhaps you can explain that.And so on.I would in fact welcome these quotes being included in a public high school curriculum. They would be included with their full context. They would have any up to date information supplied.Then the fact that some organizations would play with quotes like this would be discussed. These and many other examples would be used to warn students about believing those who choose to deceive. It might even take on a tone that would sound like a minister in a church warning about being fooled by the prince of lies.ABE
Some further thoughts on what might be your point of this series of quotes.First it makes no difference to evolutionary theory or the fact that (whatever happened before ) evolution happened after the Cambrian.Second: it could be, and should be, pointed out when discussing the history of life on Earth that there were a few significant events that were different from the more "normal" evolutionary wanderings. One is the original origin of life. It would be important to point out how little and how much is known about this. Another is the series of mass extinctions that have occured and what the opening up of niches does for subsequent evolution. Another is the origin of multicellular life with special note that it occured after life had been on the planet for in excess of 2 Gyrs. The ideas as to why that is would be a useful discussion. Another one would be the diversification of that multicellular life into basic groups that we see now and why we should not be surprised at the events in the Cambrian and subsequent developments.However, the problem is that I think you are talking about a single (or a couple) of high school biology classes. There simply isn't time to do it all right. Perhaps the issue is: "Should biology be dealing with the specifics (such as organs and such of extant animals (most of what is in biology now) or should it be dealing with the big picture (that is the overall evolution of life on earth). Can you do one without the other? If you don't have time for both which should be picked?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-06-2005 19:04 AMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-06-2005 19:06 AM

NOSYNED SAID:
I would in fact welcome these quotes being included in a public high school curriculum. They would be included with their full context. They would have any up to date information supplied.[Jbthree] This is all I was interested in finding out. It is good that you would have no problem with quotes such as these being included in Science Curriculums. But are they? I doubt it. If the framers of Public Education are serious about truth in education, they would include authoritative statements like these to offset the claims of fact. For example, I live in Broward County Florida. Back in 1986, a Science Specialist was quoted as saying evolution is a fact. Her statement did not go unnoticed and many responded to her claim for support. Members of the Board of Education were challenged to back up her claim. No responses were ever received.
You are just as aware as I of the many evolutionists who have abandoned gradualism in favor of other theories (i.e. Punctulated Equilibria, Directed Pan Spermia, etc.)The framers of PE have broad latitude as to what can be taught. I would think that the earliest life forms would be of great interest. If the Cambrian "explodes" with complex, mutli-cellular marine life, then the precambrian should contain billions of slightly less complex life forms. They are no where to be found.Thanks for your thoughts on this.JB

PAULK WROTE:
I would certainly object to those quotes being included without more up-to-date information and commentary explaining our current state of knowledge. We do know that ancestral forms did exist even if they are largely missing from the fossil record. We know because we have genetic and morphological evidence plus a few fossils (and more are being discovered).
And since a text book will be used for a number of years any section on this material must state that research is continuing and that further progress is expected.[JB] The precambrian, like the cambrian, should "explode" with billions, perhaps trillions, of all the ancestry life forms to the cambrian. Where are they? Were they "raptured?" :-)Since I recently posted on the issue in another thread I suggest you read that for more information (and an important link):[JB] Not much there that explains the missing precams.Stay blessed,
JB