Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
There's no reason to deny exposure to the process, that I can see, except for those at a young age. This is primarily because at a young age, a child is more easily influenced. Things engrained at that time are difficult for them to change their minds about at a later date. Evolution is still, as Methuselah says, at a rather primitive stage. More things have yet to be discovered about it and the current model is still only the current model. Therefore teaching these things to young children as fact can be a mistake. Later on, like when the child enters high school or college level instruction I think would be a good time to teach them about evolution more thoroughly, for then they'd have the ability to more easily discern between fact and theory.

This logic would lead to the removal of all theorectical knowledge. Teaching the "current theory" is better than teaching nothing. Most students are able to understand evolution at the general level. The arguements against the theory and total lack of any credible theories to the contrary. Your position is anti-intellectual and purely political. The cries that religion is being attacked is a smokescreen for the attack by some religions on the concept of secular education. Creationism, far from springing from any valid research, is just another tool of religous zealots trying to reimpose religion by force as it did in the past. What you preach is ignorance, more poorly educated students, more time wasted sitting in high school not learning, and of course, more sales of creationist textbooks.



It's really a wonderful strategy. Evolution is too complex and there is no danger if you don't believe it is true. Creation is so simple a child can remember it. They are taught that to not believe means to burn for eternity in hell. It is passed on by adults to children before they have the capacity to reason. It has evolved into a self-perpetuating idea far more adapted than evolution, especially in an environment on fear and ignorance. But the enlightenment is graining, creeping ever-forward, growing in both the power of it's truth and the evidence to support it. It has weathered attacks for the first of it's century and continues to thrive. The dinosaurs are falling over each other trying to stamp the little mammal. They forget that the asteroid of knowledge is heading right for them. It's that nagging feeling that makes them attack the theory as though it were death itself. Their own doubts about what it means. It's not an attack by science but a conflict within their own minds. They aren't trying to convince non-believers; it's an effort to prevent the loss of any of the flock. The Theory of creation is a sacramental wafer to drive away the evil thoughts. I wonder if god really gave us large brains to memorize church dogma instead of learning about his creation by experiencing it's fantastic complexity as revealed in nature? I'm guessing those with the bible want everyone to use that book but turn their back on creation itself. I encourage those who aren't sure to educate themselves in order to make an intelligent choice. It is obvious that many people make there assessments about evolution based on an incomplete understanding of it.

Here's a bit on the "intermediates" for those still listening.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Meanwhile, Cirdan, I strongly disagree with you about your earlier statement that the fly is a simple creature, and thus whether it can sprout a pair of wings to adapt to its environment or not is irrelevant.

Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

A human can't just look at a fly and say, "Oh that's just a fly. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

A fly might look at an ant and think to itself, "Oh that's just an ant. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

Meanwhile an Elephant might look at a human and say, "What is that to me? It's only a human. It's tiny and simple, and if it suddenly sprouts another leg, what does that show? It is irrelevant."



Cirdan, that was a very weak argument, and I'd like to hear you bring up even a scrap of evidence which shows the fly to be "simple."

Yes is was YOUR weak arguement regarding the fly GAINING WEIGHT, not whether it is a simple or complex creature. Complexity is relative like hot and cold.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I completely agree with you about the fly, Lief - and I would like to add that besides being EXTREMELY complex, the fly is also EXTREMELY annoying!

And, BTW, no wonder people nowdays believe so firmly in the th. of ev. - they have been taught, from their youth up, from many different authority figures, that it is the only "intelligent" theory out there! No wonder they believe it! And even those teachers who have the intellectual honesty to say that it IS a theory, and that there are other theories out there held by intelligent scientists, can do so much by a smile, or a laugh, or rolling the eyes, to show that they REALLY believe that any other theory is ridiculous. Very scientifically dishonest, in my opinion, to not consider other reasonable theories.

And creation by intelligent design is an ENTIRELY reasonable theory, based on an extremely reasonable premise, based on intelligent observation of our surroundings! I look at my computer - it is designed, not formed by chance. I look to the right and see a nice bookcase - designed, not formed by chance. I'm getting into my well-designed car in a few minutes to take the kids to visit my parents. If anyone can point out a car that is better than mine, that was put together by chance in an auto junkyard (which contains intelligently designed auto parts, BTW), then please show me. When I step outside, I'll see so many complex and well-designed things that it defies description - trees, insects, a weather system that is incredibly complex and yet stable, and people - the most incredibly complex intelligently designed creation around - and also one with a moral code firmly implanted in them, that says honesty is good, and that will (hopefully) bug them if they try to say that it is NOT reasonable to assume the possibility of creation by intelligent design!!!!

Just because your observing that does not mean that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Basically religious people are trying to CREATE a theory based on evolution and creationism in order to get creationism taught in school. Theories evolve - they don't just get created like the religious community is trying to do.

Also - anyone that doesn't realise that Evolution is a Theory is an idiot basically. Sorry - but the full name is THEORY of Evolution. If that doesn't give it away - I don't what will. But there is no other theory out there that really stands up to the scientific scrutiny right now. Is evolution perfect, do we understand evolution completely? NO. But science attempts to find the answers. If something comes up that throws a wrench into the Theory of Evolution - then they must account for it in some way. They need to find out why it doesn't fit. In religion and the arguement for Intelligent Design you can just argue "well God just did it that way" and go on. That is not science.

You can't prove intelligent design exists in nature by bringing up man made objects as proof. Does that mean that we are Gods? We have created new organisisms so I guess we are. Like I said before - the earth being an alien's failed 3rd grade science experiment is more believable to me than a supreme being. I have never discounted the possibilty that we weren't created by some outside entity - I just don't believe in a supreme all knowing being.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
A fly is relatively simple creature in terms of certain aspects. It's much simpler than a human, which has a much more advanced brain, more complex spinal system, digestive system, etc. It is much simpler than a bird or othe more complex animals. Just because it has thousands of lenses in it's eye - does not mean that the fly itself is an overly complex creature.

It depends how you define complex, I suppose. But the reason they study the fly is partly because it is a "simpler" creature in those respects, and it is easier for them to find out mechanisms in it that work in the larger and more complex creatures. However, as in this wing sprouting thing, it is ridiculous that you aren't willing to accept the mechanisms that are observed when you specifically go to this creature because there you have a better to observe them. The simplicity of the creature doesn't change the laws that rule it and other creatures. What (In my opinion) changes the laws that rule the fly and other creatures is more the fact that the observed data goes against current scientific theory.


Cirdan, you are completely wrong about religion, our purpose, and just about everything in your post. I won't even bother with refuting all of it point by point.

However, I will reexplain my logic and opinion, as you clearly didn't grip it. Children at an earlier age (Between birth and adolescence) are more ready to accept and learn new things, and believe them for truth. It is easy for them to accept things, and an important time of learning for them. Later on, like when they reach adolescence they begin to grapple with the questions of how we know the things we know, and what is truth?. Certain fact should be taught to children at this earlier age, not changing theories (For evolution, as you apparently are objecting to, is still at an early stage in development).

I'm saying that at this stage of learning, children shouldn't be forced to grapple with questions that they aren't ready to grapple with yet. They should be taught things that are certain fact or which aren't likely to change. Then, later on when they're ready to question and to learn about more difficult subjects, then they should be taught the things that are more theoretical and prone to change.

The trouble is, Cirdan, that you seem to have a dogmatic view of science which actually fits the description given by BeardofPants for religion. Look at #3, and try to keep an open mind in this debate.

[Lief Erikson]

Anyway, I'm going to drop out of this debate for a little while to do further research on the environment issue.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I won't even bother with refuting all of it point by point.

That seems to be your basic strategy here. Change the subject, ask lots of questions and then not listen to the answers. I went to the trouble to post a document showing gradualism in the fossil record. No comment?

There is no evidence of knowledge harming young children.

[Earniel]

by Lief: More things have yet to be discovered about it and the current model is still only the current model. Therefore teaching these things to young children as fact can be a mistake. Later on, like when the child enters high school or college level instruction I think would be a good time to teach them about evolution more thoroughly, for then they'd have the ability to more easily discern between fact and theory.

I disgree. The evolution model may not be perfect but you can't wait to teach it to children until it's perfect. And the chance that it'll change profounfly is IMO not that large. You also can't teach evolution unless you make it clear that evolution is science and therefore still is a field of discovery. Otherwise you can't make them understand the essence of science. Children need IMO a grasp of evolutionscience at least in the beginning of high school. I also think it wouldn't be bad either if they were already confronted with the basics at the age of 10 -11.

by RÃ*anAnd, BTW, no wonder people nowdays believe so firmly in the th. of ev. - they have been taught, from their youth up, from many different authority figures, that it is the only "intelligent" theory out there! No wonder they believe it! And even those teachers who have the intellectual honesty to say that it IS a theory, and that there are other theories out there held by intelligent scientists, can do so much by a smile, or a laugh, or rolling the eyes, to show that they REALLY believe that any other theory is ridiculous. Very scientifically dishonest, in my opinion, to not consider other reasonable theories.

Actually RÃ*an I had far more problems with getting the religious creationtheory out of my mind than the evolutiontheory. Because religion is giving at such a young age to children it gets deeply ingrained in their memory. When I was around 10 to 12 I found myself unable to even question the existence of god. I do not think you can truly believe in something if you cannot decide for yourself whether that something truly exists. I really struggled with that then.

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I disgree. The evolution model may not be perfect but you can't wait to teach it to children until it's perfect. And the chance that it'll change profounfly is IMO not that large. You also can't teach evolution unless you make it clear that evolution is science and therefore still is a field of discovery. Otherwise you can't make them understand the essence of science. Children need IMO a grasp of evolutionscience at least in the beginning of high school. I also think it wouldn't be bad either if they were already confronted with the basics at the age of 10 -11.


Actually RÃ*an I had far more problems with getting the religious creationtheory out of my mind than the evolutiontheory. Because religion is giving at such a young age to children it gets deeply ingrained in their memory. When I was around 10 to 12 I found myself unable to even question the existence of god. I do not think you can truly believe in something if you cannot decide for yourself whether that something truly exists. I really struggled with that then.

I like your post, even though I disagree somewhat with the conclusion. I can well imagine that it would be hard to get the religious creation theory out of your head since it was drilled in from an early age. I also think that children should be exposed to evolution at an early age, and even more importantly, to the manner in which the scientific method works. The problem is that usually, at an early age especially, evolution and most scientific discoveries are not taught as theory. They are taught, somewhat dogmatically, as fact. Evolution theory is put on a par with the belief that the earth revolves around the sun. When children are young, I think that when it comes to teaching things dogmatically as fact, it should be the parents who exercise control. Hence, subjects which are controversial should be left out of a public school curriculum until children are more capable of exercising critical reasoning skills and weighing evidence. Parents who want their children to be exposed to evolutionary theory can certainly augment their children's education with documentaries and the like. There are certainly plenty of those available, and practically every child likes to watch documentaries about dinosaurs and prehistoric life. There are plenty of less controversial issues throughout history (that once were controversial), such as slavery and race issues, that can help children learn critical reading skills and the importance of weighing evidence. There have also been cases when scientists made incorrect conclusions. Looking at these can help children to look critically at scientific data and learn how to weigh evidence. But putting them into situations where they could experience conflict between what they are taught at home or church and what they are taught in school is really unnecessary for children of younger ages. Probably the earliest age evolution should be introduced into a public school curriculum is at age 13, and maybe even age 15. I make exception of controversial subjects of a strong moral issue. Racial tolerance issues, for example, should not be avoided due to the fact that someone may have a parent with strong racial prejudice.

[Cirdan]

Children at age thirteen are probably about the right age. I would hope that a lot more of the basic foundation sciences would be taught before evolution. Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Geography, and of course math and the other basics up to an apropriate level should be covered first. I don't think that the theory makes as much sense without it. Historical readings in general science would be greatly deficient in not discussing the role of the theory in science and how it came about. Some have tried to appease the anti-evolutionsts by teaching "around" evolution but they invariably run into problems discussing heredity, morphology, and genetics without it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
However, I will reexplain my logic and opinion, as you clearly didn't grip it. Children at an earlier age (Between birth and adolescence) are more ready to accept and learn new things, and believe them for truth. It is easy for them to accept things, and an important time of learning for them. Later on, like when they reach adolescence they begin to grapple with the questions of how we know the things we know, and what is truth?. Certain fact should be taught to children at this earlier age, not changing theories (For evolution, as you apparently are objecting to, is still at an early stage in development).

I'm saying that at this stage of learning, children shouldn't be forced to grapple with questions that they aren't ready to grapple with yet. They should be taught things that are certain fact or which aren't likely to change. Then, later on when they're ready to question and to learn about more difficult subjects, then they should be taught the things that are more theoretical and prone to change.

I don't see religion saying that the Bible is only one truth out there. Are you going to stop teaching the bible - because it's not fact. It's based on beliefs. There is a BIG difference between fact and belief. They are also taught not to question it - which is even worse in my opinion.

And NO WAY should evolution be limited to 15 years or older. I say whenever students get into more "advanced" science - which for me was around 6th grade. Younger than that you still learn about dinosaurs and early humans - but not evolution.

Leif - I didn't read about the wing sprouting post - and I'm not commenting on that. I never referred to it. I was replying to the fact that people were claiming that the fly was a complex creature. I was responding to this -

Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well i don't see religion saying that the Bible is only one truth out there. Are you going to stop teaching the bible - because it's not fact. It's based on beliefs. There is a BIG difference between fact and belief.

And NO WAY should evolution be limited to 15 years or older. I say whenever students get into more "advanced" science - which for me was around 6th grade. Younger than that you still learn about dinosaurs and early humans - but not evolution.

I had the same reservations about that blanket statement. I should be a matter of ability not age, but that would get me on a whole education jag that is a much larger subject. It has a place in general science when then subject matter is at a level where questions can be handled at that level. The misconceptions about the theory often come from too general attempts to present it without the backround science level required.

Religion has social uses beyond creation so I think children do benefit from some exposure to it. People should consider how well the child will understand a strict reading of actual scripture before pushing too deep into it, though. I think it is worse to prevent a child from having access to all positive aspects of our culture. Early indoctrination of anything using a dogmatic approach while blocking out alternative ideas does more harm than good. Basic common sense about age appropriate matters is best.

[Rían]

AARGGHH! I come back from Grandma's and my posts are completely misunderstood!! Well, I'll get a cup of tea and try to clear things up.

OK, I'm going to start by quoting my post:

And creation by intelligent design is an ENTIRELY reasonable theory, based on an extremely reasonable premise, based on intelligent observation of our surroundings! I look at my computer - it is designed, not formed by chance. I look to the right and see a nice bookcase - designed, not formed by chance. I'm getting into my well-designed car in a few minutes to take the kids to visit my parents. If anyone can point out a car that is better than mine, that was put together by chance in an auto junkyard (which contains intelligently designed auto parts, BTW), then please show me. When I step outside, I'll see so many complex and well-designed things that it defies description - trees, insects, a weather system that is incredibly complex and yet stable, and people - the most incredibly complex intelligently designed creation around - and also one with a moral code firmly implanted in them, that says honesty is good, and that will (hopefully) bug them if they try to say that it is NOT reasonable to assume the possibility of creation by intelligent design!!!!

Now would you people PLEASE stop trying to accuse me of dragging in God and the Bible!! Where do you see either of those two terms mentioned?? Because I'm a Christian, I happen to believe that God exists and the Bible is true, but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! to do with this discussion! Absolutely nothing! Why should it? It is outside the realm of science! I'm asking you to please evaluate what I, personally, am saying, not what you have heard other creationists say. Please don't attribute motives to me that you have attributed to others.

My personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with how I scientifically evaluate something, and th. of ev. people's beliefs should ALSO have NOTHING to do with how they evaluate something scientifically. Wouldn't you agree? Please do me the courtesy of reading the above quote again and tell me how formulating a theory on the basis of creation by intelligent design is not a reasonable premise, as seems to be the opinion among th. of ev. people. Or, if you agree that it is a reasonable premise for a theory, then you can tell me that, too! (and again, as I said before, it will be the DETAILS of the theory that are testable - "in the area of physics, I expect to see the following: a, b, c..; in the area of biology, I expect to see the following: d, e, f....," etc.)

[Rían]

(ps - I'm not trying to "yell" by using bolds and caps, I'm trying to bring to your attention the important areas where I have been completely misunderstood. Again, please don't answer back the way you would to the creationists that you have come across in the past, I'm asking you to read and think about and answer MY post.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
That seems to be your basic strategy here. Change the subject, ask lots of questions and then not listen to the answers.

Oh, come now, Cirdan - "basic strategy"? - how can you say that? That's pretty unfair, don't you think?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, come now, Cirdan - "basic strategy"? - how can you say that? That's pretty unfair, don't you think?

Not when I get answers like " that didn't answer my question" to a post without a well thought out response. Changing the subject is very popular as well. Is we stay on one topic too long we might get down to facts.

About the ID I think the misinterpretation is due to the misuse of the "theory" label. It may be a hypothesis, but there are no observations to support it.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Not when I get answers like " that didn't answer my question" to a post without a well thought out response. Changing the subject is very popular as well. Is we stay on one topic too long we might get down to facts.

About the ID I think the misinterpretation is due to the misuse of the "theory" label. It may be a hypothesis, but there are no observations to support it.

Edit: Oh, and I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.

[Rían]

by Eärniel
I do not think you can truly believe in something if you cannot decide for yourself whether that something truly exists.

Oh, absolutely! I agree with you 100%!! And I'd love to talk things over with you some more in that area

But do you see that belief has nothing to do with either theory? That BOTH have a reasonable premise, and both should have their TESTABLE DETAILS developed and tested and adjusted, as necessary, by intelligent and open-minded scientists?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Not when I get answers like " that didn't answer my question" to a post without a well thought out response. Changing the subject is very popular as well. Is we stay on one topic too long we might get down to facts.

What I was objecting to was your use of the term "basic strategy". I think saying something closer to "well, you sure didn't answer my last post!" would have been a more accurate representation of Lief's posting.

About the ID I think the misinterpretation is due to the misuse of the "theory" label. It may be a hypothesis, but there are no observations to support it.

I've been avoiding giving some of the details because I can't even get th. of ev. people to admit it's a valid premise. The theory is COMPLETELY thrown out, before it is even considered, just because it doesn't have the word "evolution" in it! Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I've been avoiding giving some of the details because I can't even get th. of ev. people to admit it's a valid premise. The theory is COMPLETELY thrown out, before it is even considered, just because it doesn't have the word "evolution" in it! Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

It's a bit off topic but that's no crime. As long as your not proposing it be taught in schools, I'm fine with it. Blackheart and I had a long discussion about this so I familiar with some of the arguements. I have posted that evolution as a mechanism of god (ID) is open to me since it can't be disproved easily.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, absolutely! I agree with you 100%!! And I'd love to talk things over with you some more in that area

But do you see that belief has nothing to do with either theory? That BOTH have a reasonable premise, and both should have their TESTABLE DETAILS developed and tested and adjusted, as necessary, by intelligent and open-minded scientists?

The problem is is that Inteligent Design is a term that was just coined to get creationism taught in the classrooms. If people can convince schools that it is a valid theory - even if none of it is based on scientific study - then they'll be happy.

All intelligent design is is evolution based on their being a god - particularly a chiristian god. There is no scientific proof of there being a supreme being. Until there is - god or a supreme being should not be brought into the science room. The use of God can explain anything without having to look any further at the facts. Can't explain gravity - just say that god created it. Can't explain the sun - just say god created it. Anything man can't understand - or if the Intelligent Design "theory" runs into some problems - just say that God created it that way.

New Jersey is a very deverse state - with the Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Whose religion do we teach? Would you accept the Hindu belief of the cow being the intermediate between the two lives of a person being taught in school? There is no scientific fact in this - but who is to say it's wrong? What happens if they coin a theory to try to explain it - would you be willing to have it taught in a science course?

Maybe you want to look further at the truth - but most people that support Intelligent Design only do it because it gets God and creationism into the public schools.