Should Evolution be taught in schools?
Moderator: Moderators
Should Evolution be taught in schools?
Post #1I am doing a persuasive paper for my composition class and I chose this topic, so I'd like to be able to get other people's opinions on the subject. Thanks!
Post #4
"Should Evolution be taught in schools?"
Yes, evolution should definitely be taught in science class. The reason? There is no scientific alternative.
Teaching the Genesis account as science is clearly unconstitutional.
Intelligent design has zero scientific credentials, and, further, has been exposed as an attempted "end run" around the constitutional issues. Despite the attempts by ID proponents to distance their position from biblical literalism, they have shown through public testimony that their "movement" is religiously inspired, and, as such, it will not get past the courts.
Yes, evolution should definitely be taught in science class. The reason? There is no scientific alternative.
Teaching the Genesis account as science is clearly unconstitutional.
Intelligent design has zero scientific credentials, and, further, has been exposed as an attempted "end run" around the constitutional issues. Despite the attempts by ID proponents to distance their position from biblical literalism, they have shown through public testimony that their "movement" is religiously inspired, and, as such, it will not get past the courts.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20832
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 213 times
- Been thanked: 362 times
- Contact:
Post #5
Of course evolution should be taught in schools (and that's coming from a creationist!). But, probably the better question would be, how should evolution be taught? Very few people seem to really understand it. And many have differing ideas on what it is and is not.angelgirl wrote:Should Evolution be taught in schools
Post #6
Evolution should be taught, absolutely. However, it should be taught differently than it is now. In an effort to dumb down the textbooks to make the concepts less difficult to master, textbook publishers have eliminated most of the data in their discussions of evolution--and in their discussions of most of the rest of science, for that matter. Therefore, evolution comes across as equivalent to theology: received wisdom provided by an Authority. It's just that the Authority is the teacher, not the fundamentalist church.
Evolution should be taught by providing the data, and allowing students to interpret it.
We have the entire geological column in one oil-prospecting core. The strata contain certain micro-fossils. Some of those strata have been dated by radiometric dating. These strata are sequentially exposed from the eastern boundary of North Dakota to the Rockies. Many of these exposures have been dated.
What do students conclude from these data? What alternative explanations are there?
The same microfossils are found in strata elsewhere in the world. Those strata, when subjected to radiometric dating, reveal the same ages.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
With respect to the radiometric dating, each of the strata that have been tested shows a caracteristic ratio of potassium and argon isotopes. Given the known half-lives of these elements, and their parent/product ratio, what ages do students calculate for these strata? What alternative explanations are there?
Strata of 465 million years old contain fossils of certain plants and animals. What does this information indicate the world was like at this time? What alternative explanations are there?
Strata of 65 million years old contain fossils of certain types...Again, what was the world like, and what alternative explanations are there?
Strata of 55 million years old contain fossils that, in many respects, are quite different from those of 65 million years ago. What happened? What enabled the mammals, whose fossils were few and small at 65 MYA, to expand in numbers and types in the mere 10 million years between 65 MYA and 55 MYA? What alternative explanations are there?
Over 10 million years or so, fossils were deposited in what is now Pakistan, and later in world-wide locations, that show remarkable similarities in certain characteristics of jaws or limbs--and that do not share these similarities with other mammalian fossils. These fossils resemble modern whales in many respects as well.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
Fossils from a period of over 10 million years or so in length show variations that suggest a progression of species that started as maniraptor dinosaurs, and ended as what we now call birds.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
Fossils from a period of over 10-40 million years in length show variations that suggest changes in the limb morphology of lobe-finned fish that lived in near-shore and fresh-water swamp environments. The earliest of these are entirely fish-like; the latest are the first known amphibians.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
DNA sequences from all living things thus far examined share particular sequences. Other sequences show variations. Organisms that are most similar morphologically have DNA sequences that are most similar. From these similarities and differences, we can produce a "tree" diagram of similarities.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
Individuals of any species inherit their DNA from their parent(s). Sometimes mutations occur. Some of these create disadvantages for the individuals that carry them. Some create advantages. The individuals with advantages out-compete the individuals with disadvantages. What do students conclude must occur over time for organisms that use DNA as their genetic material?
In short, these are simple matters of data and its interpretation. Students should be free, and even required, to consider alternative explanations--assuring that, as they progress in their accumulation of knowledge, they ensure that their alternative explanations continue to fit the data that they have previously examined.
There really is no better explanation for the data than evolution as the theory is currently expressed.
Students should also be taught biblical creation, as well as other theological explanations of origins. This should be done in a course devoted to theology. In our current world, it is absolutely essential that students understand the religions of other peoples, so they can better understand and communicate with anyone they may meet--in person or online.
By contrast, legislating the instruction of one particular theological explanation of origins--based upon the writings of people who knew nothing of genetics, plate tectonics, radioactivity, or molecular biology--should be strictly forbidden.
Evolution should be taught by providing the data, and allowing students to interpret it.
We have the entire geological column in one oil-prospecting core. The strata contain certain micro-fossils. Some of those strata have been dated by radiometric dating. These strata are sequentially exposed from the eastern boundary of North Dakota to the Rockies. Many of these exposures have been dated.
What do students conclude from these data? What alternative explanations are there?
The same microfossils are found in strata elsewhere in the world. Those strata, when subjected to radiometric dating, reveal the same ages.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
With respect to the radiometric dating, each of the strata that have been tested shows a caracteristic ratio of potassium and argon isotopes. Given the known half-lives of these elements, and their parent/product ratio, what ages do students calculate for these strata? What alternative explanations are there?
Strata of 465 million years old contain fossils of certain plants and animals. What does this information indicate the world was like at this time? What alternative explanations are there?
Strata of 65 million years old contain fossils of certain types...Again, what was the world like, and what alternative explanations are there?
Strata of 55 million years old contain fossils that, in many respects, are quite different from those of 65 million years ago. What happened? What enabled the mammals, whose fossils were few and small at 65 MYA, to expand in numbers and types in the mere 10 million years between 65 MYA and 55 MYA? What alternative explanations are there?
Over 10 million years or so, fossils were deposited in what is now Pakistan, and later in world-wide locations, that show remarkable similarities in certain characteristics of jaws or limbs--and that do not share these similarities with other mammalian fossils. These fossils resemble modern whales in many respects as well.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
Fossils from a period of over 10 million years or so in length show variations that suggest a progression of species that started as maniraptor dinosaurs, and ended as what we now call birds.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
Fossils from a period of over 10-40 million years in length show variations that suggest changes in the limb morphology of lobe-finned fish that lived in near-shore and fresh-water swamp environments. The earliest of these are entirely fish-like; the latest are the first known amphibians.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
DNA sequences from all living things thus far examined share particular sequences. Other sequences show variations. Organisms that are most similar morphologically have DNA sequences that are most similar. From these similarities and differences, we can produce a "tree" diagram of similarities.
What do students conclude from these data?What alternative explanations are there?
Individuals of any species inherit their DNA from their parent(s). Sometimes mutations occur. Some of these create disadvantages for the individuals that carry them. Some create advantages. The individuals with advantages out-compete the individuals with disadvantages. What do students conclude must occur over time for organisms that use DNA as their genetic material?
In short, these are simple matters of data and its interpretation. Students should be free, and even required, to consider alternative explanations--assuring that, as they progress in their accumulation of knowledge, they ensure that their alternative explanations continue to fit the data that they have previously examined.
There really is no better explanation for the data than evolution as the theory is currently expressed.
Students should also be taught biblical creation, as well as other theological explanations of origins. This should be done in a course devoted to theology. In our current world, it is absolutely essential that students understand the religions of other peoples, so they can better understand and communicate with anyone they may meet--in person or online.
By contrast, legislating the instruction of one particular theological explanation of origins--based upon the writings of people who knew nothing of genetics, plate tectonics, radioactivity, or molecular biology--should be strictly forbidden.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #7
Hi angelgirl and welcome to the forum.
In my view, every biology course worth the name should include extensive consideration of evolution. I feel this way because:
1. Most (perhaps all or nearly all) mature sciences function under an overarching explanatory paradigm. In biology, that explanatory paradigm (or theory, if you will) is evolution. It is often said (and forgive me for forgetting the author of this quote) that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." Asking biologists to teach their subject without evolution is like asking chemists to teach their subject without discussion of atoms and molecules.
2. Evolution is supported by a vast and varied body of evidence. This evidence includes not only fossil evidence, but also evidence from molecular biology, phylogeny, geographical dispersion of fossils, comparative morphology, etc. Many aspects of evolution are supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
3. There is, in my view, no good reason to accept other explanations that have been put forward. Evolution is more comprehensive and consistent than any other scientific explanation that has been put forward. In my view, the non-scientific explanations that have been put forward (eg. Young-earth creationism or YEC, Intelligent Design, etc.) are woefully lacking. They do not consider all the evidence, and/or distort the evidence they do consider, they are based on faulty or highly suspect assumptions, they are not logically consistent, and, at least in the case of YEC, are inconsistent with known evidence, unless you assume that the scientific evidence we have has been deliberately altered by God to deceive us. At a minimum, I don't see that any of the alternative explanations I have seen are anywhere near good enough to replace evolution.
4. As has been noted already, those who do not accept evolution and/or do not think it should be taught in schools are largely religiously motivated. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with being religiously motivated, but I do not believe that the possibility of offending someone's religious sensibilities is a good reason not to teach the best scientific explanation we have of the diversity of life. We shoud be respectful of each other's religious beliefs, but this does not mean we 'censor science' because some people don't like it.
I note that Otseng has directed you to another thread on 'How should evolution be taught?' Although he and I are on different sides of the creationism/evolution question, I would agree that this is a very valid question, and that we should question how evolution is currently taught and do a better job of it. I am not in favor of the 'teach the controversy' approach of the Intelligent Design folks, because I think they misrepresent (or misunderstand) the nature of the controversy.
I think it WOULD be helpful to include some discussion of the history of science in conjunction with the teaching of evolution. THe controversy surrounding the Copernican system which occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries is a good case study, I think, for what is happening now. This episode includes religious implications, as well as some examples of what scientists did right and also did WRONG.
I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin LUther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong. To date, I have not gotten a response.
Hope you enjoy the forum, and good luck with your project.
In my view, every biology course worth the name should include extensive consideration of evolution. I feel this way because:
1. Most (perhaps all or nearly all) mature sciences function under an overarching explanatory paradigm. In biology, that explanatory paradigm (or theory, if you will) is evolution. It is often said (and forgive me for forgetting the author of this quote) that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." Asking biologists to teach their subject without evolution is like asking chemists to teach their subject without discussion of atoms and molecules.
2. Evolution is supported by a vast and varied body of evidence. This evidence includes not only fossil evidence, but also evidence from molecular biology, phylogeny, geographical dispersion of fossils, comparative morphology, etc. Many aspects of evolution are supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
3. There is, in my view, no good reason to accept other explanations that have been put forward. Evolution is more comprehensive and consistent than any other scientific explanation that has been put forward. In my view, the non-scientific explanations that have been put forward (eg. Young-earth creationism or YEC, Intelligent Design, etc.) are woefully lacking. They do not consider all the evidence, and/or distort the evidence they do consider, they are based on faulty or highly suspect assumptions, they are not logically consistent, and, at least in the case of YEC, are inconsistent with known evidence, unless you assume that the scientific evidence we have has been deliberately altered by God to deceive us. At a minimum, I don't see that any of the alternative explanations I have seen are anywhere near good enough to replace evolution.
4. As has been noted already, those who do not accept evolution and/or do not think it should be taught in schools are largely religiously motivated. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with being religiously motivated, but I do not believe that the possibility of offending someone's religious sensibilities is a good reason not to teach the best scientific explanation we have of the diversity of life. We shoud be respectful of each other's religious beliefs, but this does not mean we 'censor science' because some people don't like it.
I note that Otseng has directed you to another thread on 'How should evolution be taught?' Although he and I are on different sides of the creationism/evolution question, I would agree that this is a very valid question, and that we should question how evolution is currently taught and do a better job of it. I am not in favor of the 'teach the controversy' approach of the Intelligent Design folks, because I think they misrepresent (or misunderstand) the nature of the controversy.
I think it WOULD be helpful to include some discussion of the history of science in conjunction with the teaching of evolution. THe controversy surrounding the Copernican system which occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries is a good case study, I think, for what is happening now. This episode includes religious implications, as well as some examples of what scientists did right and also did WRONG.
I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin LUther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong. To date, I have not gotten a response.
Hope you enjoy the forum, and good luck with your project.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20832
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 213 times
- Been thanked: 362 times
- Contact:
Post #8
There's probably a better thread to answer this, but I'll give a brief response here.micatala wrote:I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin LUther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong. To date, I have not gotten a response.
Genesis 1 and 2 can certainly be interpreted by Christians non-literally. But, I also maintain that it can be interpreted literally. My arguments for such is based primarily on empirical and verifiable evidence. I believe there is sufficient evidence in the world to have it correlate with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 (as well as chapters 3 - 10). In all of my posts in CvE, I have rarely relied on the Bible for support. Practically all of my supporting evidence comes from secular sources. And, to my knowledge, I have exercised logical arguments to support my positions. If I can do all these things to support my literal interpretation of Genesis, why should I not be allowed to do so?
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #9
Of the responses that have been posted in the meanwhile, I think CJO's goes closest to the heart of the matter.can you explain why you feel that way?
Evolution is the only theory on offer. All biological evidence, 100% of it, supports the theory of evolution. All active research biologists, 100% of them, support the theory of evolution.
Creationism, OTOH, is not a theory. It has no facts, no observations, and no experiments behind it. It's just a religious doctrine.
BTW, since you said this question was relating to a composition class, I feel obligated to say that I don't think the material that we have posted in response to your question will make a very good essay. The level at which we carry on this debate may not be appropriate for a more basic level. (I know from experience that my particular viewpoints are not generally appreciated by school teachers. I remember when I was in school, I had to write a persuasive essay on abortion. Oh, boy did that set off my teacher...)
You might also want to look at these FAQs, if you have any questions about many of the common issues in the debate:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
DanZ
Post #10
Thanks for the response, OOtseng wrote:micatala wrote:
I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin LUther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong. To date, I have not gotten a response.
Otseng:
There's probably a better thread to answer this, but I'll give a brief response here.
Genesis 1 and 2 can certainly be interpreted by Christians non-literally. But, I also maintain that it can be interpreted literally. My arguments for such is based primarily on empirical and verifiable evidence. I believe there is sufficient evidence in the world to have it correlate with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 (as well as chapters 3 - 10). In all of my posts in CvE, I have rarely relied on the Bible for support. Practically all of my supporting evidence comes from secular sources. And, to my knowledge, I have exercised logical arguments to support my positions. If I can do all these things to support my literal interpretation of Genesis, why should I not be allowed to do so?
.I am certainly not saying no one should be 'allowed' to take a literal interpretation (as if I had such power or even wanted it
). I also agree that you are a very logical, thorough, and adept debater. I would say it is possible to find evidence that correlates with Genesis. I disagree that the literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with all the available evidence, but that is what this forum is about, and I will leave that for the many other threads addressing that question.
My question is really for those who insist there is no other possible interpretation of Genesis other than the YEC version. The question is motivated by the observation that others in the past have made literal interpretations and been wrong (eg. Luther, Bellarmine, etc.). This of course does not mean that all literal interpretations are wrong, only that this is a definite possibility, and has demonstrably occurred.
Given this, I am mystified why some can be so absolutist in their insistence that only the one interpretation can possibly be true. Why must this literal interpretation be true, and not Luther's literal interpretation of the passages on the immobility of the earth and the motion of the sun?
I think I will follow your suggestion and start another thread on this (but not right now, as the pizza has arrived).
