Hi Dave! Jeepers, I'm having a really difficult time figuring out how to answer this poll. I just don't like the wording of the poll question, I guess. I don't like the thought that Darwinism and ID are "competing theories." Further, I do not see that creationism is a theory in the scientific sense; and well you say that ID presented as such would probably not get a fair shake in classrooms under present conditions. I think that's unfortunate; for certainly ID would have to include such things as information theory (e.g., Shannon's theory of communications), applications of quantum field theory to living systems, the mathematical basis of genetic coding, etc. ID is not "monolithic" and does not have a full-blown theory. What it is so well suited for, however, is its searching interest in asking the right questions, and looking in certain new areas of science that have been developing over the past several decades, but which do not seem to have come to the attention of neoDarwinian theorists.
ID gets a bad rap because people have been misled as to what it signifies. It does not propose any particular intelligent agent or phenomenon, and does not seem to be an argument for "special creation," of a God constantly intervening in the physical universe. Plus it has no eschatology, no holy writ, no dogmas, no hierarchical authority -- in short it bears no signs that we associate with religion or religious practice.
To the extent that neoDarwinists continue to include speculations about abiogenesis (something that Charles Darwin never endorsed) in high school biology courses, then some kind of antidote or corrective is needed. Perhaps they could just mention somewhere along the way that after people like Francis Crick and Hubert Yockey, the expectation that the origin of life bottoms out in chemistry is highly likely to be a dead letter?
Still don't know how to vote; am leaning "yes" but am still not sure.... Maybe I'll just sit this one out....
Thanks so much for the ping, Dave!
Evolution is not a theory either. Go ahead and vote. Remember that evolution is useful to botany taxonomists and social scientists.
This is basically a freedom of speech issue, i.e. are American school kids going to get to learn that there actually is a controversy on this topic and that there actually are scientific arguments to be made against evolution, or are they going to be kept in the dark by self-appointed science censors.
Perhaps it would have been better to ask if the creation account should be taught as an alternative explanation of how life arose on the earth, even if it's taught in science classes along with the ToE. It would be interesting to see the poll results for that wording, as I know several others have expressed the same difficulties in voting as you did.
I didn't vote, either....
Sadly, this thread is in the Smokey Backroom where few of the Lurkers who would benefit the most from what you have to say will actually read it.
So I’ve accumulated my favorite quotes from you on this thread and shall be posting them to a much higher visibility thread in the Religion Forum.
(Not only do they bear repeating but I wish to bookmark the the lot of them LOL!)
I believe the primary focus of the question asked is directed at public schools, in particular, public high schools. Although it has been a while since I have been in high school (college, graduate school and several years of very interesting work have since past), I believe there is some knowledge that is gained via experience, and my personal experience in public high school biology class is relevant to the question at hand.
My high school biology instructor repeated her presupposition that "evolution is a fact" over and over and over again, sounding more like a broken record then a science teacher. The vast majority of classroom time was wasted studying antiquated, disproved 'evidences' for evolution. There was very little classroom time was spent on learning fundamental biological concepts: analyzing structure and function, cell division and mitosis, meiosis, biochemistry, genetics, etc. or performing laboratory experiments. It was self-evident that it was more important to the instructor that the students in my class believe in evolution then understand fundamental biology concepts. If I asked a typical student in my class after her lectures, “Did the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrate that life could come from non-life?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The law of abiogenesis was not important, life miraculously arising from non-life was. If I asked one of my peers in the class after her lectures: “If someone was to lift weights and increase their muscle mass, would genetic traits of bigger muscle would be passed on to their children?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The laws of genetics were not important, miraculously changing from one species to another was. The perspective my biology class was taught from hindered the understanding of fundamental biological laws of many of my peers. Teaching evolution ‘as fact’, as the ‘only view allowed’ did not enhance the educational process, it hindered it.
All hope was not lost. Heros are born in unlikely times. While most of class was sadly merely regurgitating the antiquated, disproved 'evidences’ for evolution on tests, FreedomProtector learned how to think independently and to prove the regurgitated antiquated ‘evidences’ are invalid, have that proof stand up to the very hostile, well-educated peer-review test, and write both on tests in the time most of the class was just regurgitating. Batman was born when the Joker killed his parents. FreedomProtector was born in this biology class when the instructor tried to kill freedom of intellectual inquiry. The very hostile, well-educated peer-review carried over to FreedomProtector’s high school physics class where the Physics instructor had a Master’s degree in evolutionary biology, but in his words “could only get a job teaching physics”.
Although one class is a very small sample, I believe from what I have heard and read elsewhere that it is reasonable to believe that this sample is sadly descriptive of other high school biology classes.
"Should a view be taught/should a view be allowed to be taught?" is not the right question. Maybe this is a valid question for a classroom in the former Soviet Union, but not for America. There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry. The right questions which should be asked by anyone whether they are in a classroom regulated by an all-knowing state or not are: Which view is probable? Which view is most likely true?