Assaults on evolution in our schools

I agree; we must keep religous' teaching (creationism) out of our schools. YIKES!

Hmmm - how to explain this?

If I had my choice between our students graduating from high school either:

1. Having learned how to think for themselves, and not having learned a lot of facts, or

2. Having learned a lot of facts, but having no idea how to think for themselves

I'd choose the first option hands down. Now I know that in an ideal world our students would leave school knowing both how to think and having learned facts, but, well, the quality of education in our public schools is a topic for a different thread.

If any theory isn't strong enough to stand up to scrutiny, then it isn't much of a theory. Exposing students to multiple sides of issues (any issue, whether scientific, economic, social etc) strengthens their analytic ability. It makes them more aware not only of what Western Civilization believes, but more importantly why we believe it.

Of course I want our students to have a firm knowledge of science. The methodology of the scientific method should be a cornerstone of this, which includes evaluating competing theories based on the facts.

Jim, We need to teach the children the basics before we can consider their ability to "think for themselves." They must have the basic ability to read, write, and perform math at a level that allows them to learn on their own by reading books to expand their knowledge in any field they desire. It's also my belief that different children have different abilities and skills that can be nurtured to maximize their knowledge in their field of interest. At the very least, all students must learn how to fill out application forms, maintain their own financial records, and write in proper grammatical form. Otherwise, think for themselves is a noble goal.

Jim, im thinking that you feel that evolutionary theory has flaws in it and Creationism is even a real "theory". Thts just not so. every one of the bricks in the wall of Creationist thought have been carefully and sensitively dispensed with and evolutionary theory just gets stronger and stronger by discoveries in the various sister sciences
. So, therefore, for example, its not necessary for your kids to be taught the phlogiston theory when we all know of how chemicals react and their structure. A survey course in the istory of science is not usually taught in high schools mostly because the teachers themselves dont "keep up with the literature' and are mostly unable to handle the subject well.

Sure. But the choice you are facing in any given school system is not all or nothing. It's a little bit more of one and a little less of the other than we currently have, or a little less of the one and a little more of the other than we currently have. The best decision when facing this choice is that you tell the best established facts first, then move on to less well established ones. At the same time, you teach critical thinking skills by discussing the most controversial topics first, then move on to less controversial ones. Evolution easily falls into the "well established facts" category. It is pretty far down on the list of topics that merit a lot of debate. I'd say third place above the bottom of the list, right before Bohr's model of atoms and classical physics (mechanics and electromagnetism).


This is not how scientists think about theories. If I propose a theory that you are 10 ft tall and have green hair, it won't stand up to scrutiny, but it is nevertheless very much of a theory. What makes it a valid theory is the possibility to disprove it. The theory that there was biological evolution can be disproved. Lots of people tried hard to disprove it, but didn't. By contrast, creationism, "intelligent design", etc cannot be disproved and thus have no scientific value. There's a better case for teaching Ptolemaic astronomy in physics classes than for teaching "intelligent design" in biology classes. At least Ptolemaic astronomy is a refutable scientific theory. The fact that Galilei disproved it is a relatively minor objection against it.


But creationism and its decendants aren't a science, and "intelligent design" isn't in any scientifically meaningful way competing with with evolution. There is no reason to teach it except religion and politics.