[ClearCase_guy]

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.

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.

[whattajoke]

Good questions and response. I was going to respond very similarly as the oldman, but he beat me to it. Your points 1, 3, and 4 are valid concerns, but as has been pointed out, they are universally addressed in college level courses, and often in high school.

The thing is, though, that creationists have much different “concerns” with evolution. If this is all they were, we’d not have any issue at all with discussion or conversation on the matter. I’m somewhat surprised none of them attempted to flay you for your reasoned concerns.

They weren’t wild enough.

[oldmanreedy]

Your post has a tinge of conspiratorial paranoiac thinking that alarms me. Biologists (the vast majority, anyways) think evolutionary theory is valid and important. Of course they want it taught. What else are they supposed to do? It's not that they couldn't imagine alternatives, it's that the alternatives creationists propose are wrong (or improper to teach in science classes). This is what I mean by high schools not being an appropriate place for a scientific debate -- scientific literature changes first, and then high school curriculum (gradually) follows. So if creationists wish to 'challenge' evolution, they need to do it in Nature and not on the Kansas Board of Education.

You are correct that the teaching of subjects like the Cambrian Explosion does not reflect any serious challenge to the 'tenets of evolution'. This is because virtually no reputable biologists believes that these subjects pose a serious challenge to evolutionary tenets. Debates are covered from the perspective of the scientific community, as is proper in science classes. A good example is Gould and Eldridge's punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. Note that this followed the correct pattern for scientific ideas: data (Burgess Shale etc) ---> articles in scientific literature ---> tumult, debate, bitchy academic backstabbing --> more data, less heated debate and analysis ---> respectability ---> inclusion in school textbooks.