"1) Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species" but there is something called "the species problem" which discusses the fact that even today, 150 years after Darwin, we aren't completely clear on what a species really is. I think it's a good topic for discussion to help student sunderstand that naming and categorization in science is often difficult. The way we think about things often grows from how we identify the things -- and we don't always get that part right."
This is a completely valid and important subject for biology classes. Are you claiming that this subject is being hidden or suppressed? My college bio classes covered it in detail; my high school class did not, because I went to a crappy government-run high school. I would fully support an effort to teach more modern biological systematics in high school. Also, I would like to note that just saying 'we don't always get that part right' is pretty vague and useless.
"2) Some mathematicians have identified a probablity problem with evolution. So many things would have to line up so perfectly, that while the world we see around us might possibly arise from non-directed processes, the odds of that happening within justa few billions years seem remote. A good way to discuss probablity and mathematical analysis in science with students."
NO. NO. 'Some mathematicians' have created a grotesque caricature of evolution (rarely) or abiogenesis (usually), modeled it with painfully simple mathematics, ignored any input from actual chemical or biological properties, and proceeded to slay their own strawmannic creation. Teaching this to students does nothing but set them up for a lifetime of falling for probabilistic fallacies. Your other points concern valid interesting science, but this one is creationist talking-point pablum, and I pray that you speedily rid yourself of it.
"3) DNA has been considered to carry a lot of "junk". But some scientists now think it's not junk at all. How much do we know about DNA? We develop theories based on things we do not fully understand -- these are necessary hypotheses, but let's make sure students understand the difference between a hypothesis created from partial information and a proof based on repetition in a lab."
'Junk' DNA is a fascinating topic, and should be discussed in biology classes. Again, I fail to understand your point: do you feel that it is not being discussed? And again, if it isn't covered in public high schools, the blame is much more likely to lie with the under-qualified edu-crats running our schools than with scientists. Any campaign to make high school biology instruction more modern and responsive to the current state of the field has my whole-hearted support. Here's an idea: how about we chop Black History Month down to Black History Week, and devote the extra time/money to science classes?
I feel the need to address the second part of your statement. 'Proof' is not based on 'repetition' in a lab. A proof is the application of a sequence of logical techniques to a collection of axioms intended to produce a (usually mathematical) statement. It is much more appropriate to speak of 'proofs' in the context of mathematics than the context of science. Scientific theories are always created from 'partial information', and almost by definition concern 'things we do not fully understand'. All of this applies as much to physics and chemistry as to biology, and while some mention of these concepts may be made in biology class, the main focus should be studying biology and not the philosophy of science.
"4) The Cambrian Explosion is a unique event. 530 million years ago most major groups of animals suddenly appeared. Why? Does evolution help us understand this event? Such an event has not occurred since (at least on that scale). Why not? Does evolution help us understand why not? What are the limits to evolutionary thinking?"
Same question as before: do you think this isn't covered in bio classes? I'm pretty sure my high school bio covered the Cambrian Explosion, although due to time and IQ constraints the level of detail was frugal.
A few answers to your questions:
"Please note: My four points above are not my attempt to "prove" that evolution is "false". I merely wish to point out that there are interesting areas that can be explored and that students can gain a better understanding of how to "do" science, and what it's limitations may be, if they explore controversies within a given scientific theory."
There's nothing here I really disagree with, but I'd like to point out a few practical concerns. For some reason creationists have decided to target high school biology curriculums in particular, as though high school classrooms are the appropriate setting for scientific debates. They manifestly are not: even at the best schools, teenagers are simply not intellectually equipped to decide major scientific questions. Biology is a gargantuan subject, and high school biology (any high school science class really) is a introduction to an outline of a sketch of a brief summary. Given this reality, any controversy smaller than a full-scale revolution in the subject will get short shrift. The correct setting for 'questioning' evolution is the scientific literature, where fully informed experts can devote as much time as necessary to the judgment.
Thank you for your civil reply.
The above is really the heart of the matter, isn't it? I think biology is currently taught to young people with a heavy emphasis on evolution as a stone cold fact. Obviously, some folks can't see it any other way.
As a doubter of evolution, I find it depressing that evolution is taught to very young kids as a matter of course. It's touched on in 4th grade science. Fifth grade? Yup. Sixth grade? Yup. Covered in 7th grade? Of course. Eighth grade? You know it! And on and on.
There is a persistent effort to teach this, starting as young as possible, and to hammer it home year after year. We're shaping young minds here, aren't we? Well, people who doubt evolution actually want to get involved in the discussion too -- although you profess surprise that some opponents want to engage in "debate" in high school biology classes. How long should we leave the theory of evolution unchallenged?
As to my other points, you mention that classes typically do talk about the Cambrian Explosion, or junk DNA, etc. I imagine they do -- but I'm quite sure they do not do so in any clear attempt to "teach the controversy" or to bring into question any serious tenets of evolution. Evolution is presented as a fact. The idea that there may be "problems" in the theory is not discussed: evolution is the only game in town, and while it may be "tweaked" it is never seriously challenged.
I believe good scientists demonstrate a willingness to question assumptions. Evolution is assumed to be true. I don't think it is.