Should evolution be taught in high school science classes?

Modesto Bee ^ | 10/27/03 | Richard Anderson

[Dales]

Editor's note: Ted Dickason, a candidate for Modesto City Schools board of trustees, has stated that he believes evolution and creationism should be taught side by side in high school science classes. This position has generated substantial debate in the community, including this article opposing the teaching of creationism in schools and the two letters to the editor to the right supporting creationism and/or Dickason.

[Dales]

Two hints:

1) This would also be a very poor thread to decide to engage in flamewarring or flamebaiting.

2) If you think you can guess my views from which of these articles I am posting, you are the amazing Kreshkin. Log off and go try to make your fortune in Hollywood or with a band of travelling gypsies.

[Physicist]

So much wisdom and so simple!

"Things should be made as simple as possible...but no simpler." --Albert Einstein

[HankReardon]

Without actual ongoing living evolutionary examples between species evolution could be taughty in a 19th and 20th century history class, why not? Trust people to see the flaws, oh yeah, they should begin pointing out the flaws instead of deliberately omitting them, would be more Truthful. But if they are going to study one theory which other theories are worthy of study also?

[trebb]

The problem is that biblical creationism is not science

sci·ence n.

- The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
- Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
- Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
- Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
- Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. Science Christian Science.

Seems to me that an educated person would have to agree that it is science...

[HankReardon]

If Intelligent Design is not science then is all abstract thought put into inovations and advances also not science? What would be not scientific about proposing that all and everything did not just accidently happen? Sounds very scientific to me. Turned around and upside down isn't it?

[Physicist]

What would be not scientific about proposing that all and everything did not just accidently happen?

Nobody has proposed that everything "just accidentally happened". That's just a strawman. But still, saying that "everything is an accident" or "not everything is an accident" would not constitute a scientific theory, because it doesn't make predictions, it isn't falsifiable, and it doesn't unite disparate phenomena into a coherent framework. It's just philosophy.

[MissAmericanPie]

I don't think we can be mute on the subject. However so far there is no scientific explination for how we all got here. I certainly think it should be taught as to how species evolve to adapt to their climate, what the species looked like, how it functioned. I don't think it should be taught as being the answer as to where life came from when they just don't honestly know.

It's better for one to say they don't know rather than be wrong. We should use the documentation we have at hand, the provable points of evolustion, and especially the Bible. No use casting aside the oldest writings on the planet because of the religious label while ignoring how accurate it is in regards to which species came first, fish, birds, mammals, man.

Also the bible relates the difference between that world and this one, it never rained then, the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground, the atmosphere did not support the viewing of a rainbow, and something about the conditions allowed human life to continue from six to nine hundred years. Given what data is available to us the possibility of God should be made available to all students, it's certainly more important data than which came first, the chicken or the egg. The bible says the chicken came first with the egg inside it. Evolution takes the opposite stance, both should be available for study and experimentation.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[PatrickHenry]

Good article on this topic, from a lost thread: Physics Nobelist takes stand on evolution.

[Shryke]

Odd. I read your definition of science, and then you seem to conclude G-d is somehow testable and creationism is falsifiable? May I ask how we can test if G-d made everything as it exists today?

[Physicist]

No use casting aside the oldest writings on the planet because of the religious label while ignoring how accurate it is in regards to which species came first, fish, birds, mammals, man.

And should we also teach that trees and grasses existed before the sun did?

[Sloth]

While this claim may be true, it is a religious or philosophical belief because it invokes causes not investigable by science.

Correct. ID is a (IMO) correct recognition of design in the universe, but it is a philosophical idea, not a testable hypothesis. It doesn't belong in a science class. Creationism certainly doesn't.

On the other hand, neither does alleged historical evolution.

[Physicist]

That's not the definition of "science" he's using. He's using the so-broad-as-to-be-meaningless definition, as in "political science".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up!

The previous thread (Nobelist) had a lot of interesting dialogue that was lost. Lurkers on this thread might be interested in your summary of the debate:

1. Many religious people believe they know the answer and thus believe the scientists must be wrong.

2. Many scientists believe they know the answer and thus the religionists must be wrong.

3. Some of us, when we see a dispute between religion and science, assume that there is something we do not yet understand - either in the Scriptures or in the science - and thus proceed in researching and meditating to answer our own questions.

4. Many others accept both views without being concerned (in this life) how it reconciles.

5. And still others see science and religion both as a work in progress which evolves and informs from generation to generation.

6. Some religious people don't understand that science isn't a competing sect; it's a different intellectual activity altogether, because science and theology operate with a different set of intellectual techniques:

a. Theology uses revelation and faith; science does not.

b. Science is limited to sensory evidence and logic; theology is not.

7. Some scientific people, upon encountering religious people who don't appreciate the epistemological issues described above, assume that all religious teachings are wrong; and vice versa.

[Shryke]

Given that, even his cited definition excludes Creationism and ID from the category of science. It's like posting a picture of a clear blue sky and saying, "This is red" as the caption.

[balrog666]

The bible says the chicken came first with the egg inside it. Evolution takes the opposite stance, both should be available for study and experimentation.

The egg starts at the left arrow, chickens show up on the bottom right (much, much later).

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for posting that.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! Hugs!!!

[Physicist]

Given that, even his cited definition excludes Creationism and ID from the category of science.

They fall under the definition, "An activity that appears to require study and method".

[Right Wing Professor]

No use casting aside the oldest writings on the planet because of the religious label while ignoring how accurate it is in regards to which species came first, fish, birds, mammals, man.

The Bible is nowhere near the oldest writing on the planet. Chinese and Indus valley writings predate it by at least 1000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is probably the oldest still extant written narrative. The Sumerian creation myth, Enuma Elish , is probably older than Genesis.

The bird/fish/mammal sequence is not as close to the palaeontological sequence as you might think; fish appeared far earlier than either birds or mammals, and the latter two are of comparable antiquity. Moreover, whales did not appear before the rest of the mammals; and the creeping things' that were created on the sixth day surely included arthropods and reptiles, both of which actually predated birds.