Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Copied from wandel's article, above:

She says but fails to explain what those weaknesses are. Then follows that hanging question with without explaining what the controversy is in the scientific community.

She should be laughed out of town. Typical nothingness arguments.

I have no idea fm. You will have to ask them. I presume it's a ploy to keep atheism out by supporting the Christian worldview. It might work but I doubt it. It might be code for that agenda. I can't imagine they are seeking to actually teach what you anti-IDers have strewn all over the threshing room floor. The kids would laugh them to scorn. Or enough of them would to carry the rest. What chance is there of a lad like you and me once was, just one will do, not going home and Googling Earth Formation and bringing into the next class a load of printouts showing the lot from the swirling gases condensing up to the next car you see coming up the road and handing them round. Causing the young lady biology teacher (fancy having lady biology teachers eh what old boy), to go sobbing to the head dude with a handful of the printouts. She having also seen a film made by the Amalgamated Union of Geologists on the National Geographic channel.

The priests who taught us lot never went near any that Creationist stuff. They were into intelligent design though. Look how I turned out.

It's a big problem you guys have in not seeing the real classrooms as I do. Perhaps if you saw the classroom scene in Amarcord you might avoid being as abstract as you are; seeing the classroom in a sort of golden glow in your imagination. A concept to conjure with.

What I'm trying to say is that they might not, probably not, wish to present the case as I would. But how I would do it is what is understood to be decoded from the stated aim. An elaborate form of the technique of saying BRITISH!!! Petroleum instead of BP as a way of getting it understand that the oil spill was all the useless Limey's fault and not anybody's at that end least of all anybody in, or close to, the Oval Office.

The atheist does have an irresistable case so long as the opposition doesn't include a crucial part of the argument. By which I mean the scientific part and which I have barely hinted at. But enough to cause a hiding from it even on a science thread. Which is ridiculous under the strict applications of the scientific method.

Try me in court with a few million $$$$ of back up.

Science is increasingly based in philosphies. Why wouldnt a philosophy like religion be increasingly based in science ?

The Big bang - the creation of the universe
parrellel universes - heaven, earth and hell
evolution - God wound up the machine and let it run

I would be happy if both were taught but not as equals. They are two different things and I have never understood how trying to make two different things equal is anything more than escaping reality. Religion should not be pointing out the foibles of evolution and science should not be pointing out the foibles of religion. Surely a syllabus could be drawn up which is not biased in favour of a particluar religion. This could be on a volutary basis by students but science is compulsory.

Same here. They emphasised how to live, how to treat others, a little of the history of religion and one bold assertion : God created the universe, never mind how long it took or the processes used....and MOST importantly, the Bible should not be taken as the literal truth but as a guideline and a starting point for the exploration of God based morality.

I would be happiest if the science curriculum was left alone, in other words, minus the religious-motivated interference.
As to study of religion in state schools, no problem with that at all. But only if all major world religions are given "equal time" & emphasis. And minus any value judgments within the curriculum. In that sort of context, I believe the study of religion could have a useful purpose & an enlightening influence.

I dont see how anyone can justify the science curriculum being amended by people who dont know what it is. It should definitely not be influenced by religion.
I would not like to see equal time equal emphasis on all religions but rather a common core subject based on morality and little bit of historical matter. Cover all religions, sure, but emphasise their common aims.....a good life, respect others, the nature of the human spirit/soul, how to pray, etc.

By the way I attempted a response to you last post before this one.

Broad agreement. Good!


I can't agree with your emphasis on morality, not in the state school curriculum, anyway. Why? Definitions of morality (in terms of religion & different cultures, even) can vary a great deal . Inevitably some degree of subjective interpretation would enter the scene. I'd prefer that state schools adhered to their "free, secular & compulsory" brief (though I'd ague that the "free" part - in Oz, anyway - is debatable these days, following years of government under-funding of state schools ).
Besides, I'm certain that many parents & others in the community would object to schools formally "teaching morality", believing this is best left to the home, or even the church, for those so inclined.
However, as I suggested in my earlier post, the inclusion of all major world religions in such a study, would (hopefully) lead to greater tolerance & understanding within the community ... something I think partly meets your desired objectives?

There really is no strict requirement that there be no mention of how the history of the issues of earth origins and evolution were developed through the last millenium or two. I have a HS teacher friend who mentions Ibn Senna's "vis plastica" , the control of various religions as "keepers of the flames of education" during the 1st millenium, the concept of "homo deluvii testis"( fossils of humans asThe witnesses to the flood), and the control of science by the churches during the recent history (since the Reannaissance through the "Enlightenment". He teaches these in a few days of introduction (A historical account of the development of our thinking). He then exposes the kids to how Darwin developed his theory as a product of his own (basically unfunded) exploration and research, and he presents the competing and complementary theories (Wallace,Lamarck, etc). I think that, before he gets with the show on how evolution is understood and the strength (aqnd weaknesses) of the theory, and the facts behind it, his approach lays out a fairly detailed and adequate history. Ive used his syllabus as discussion material in some seminars and the students and other seminar attendees have endorsed this teachers work almost unanimoously
Id like to state that There never has been any attempt at total avoidance of these introductory and historical perspectives in the earth science sections of the 9th grade as well as the biology program in the 10th grade and in chemistry in 11th grade(Here in Pa). (I dont know about the southern schools at all). I do know that NY , Cal, and most New England High schools handle it the same way as PA.

HOWEVER, the line is firmly monitored if these historical perspectives are presented as "Competing theories" to nat selection. Its a difficult road to monitor becaiuse , many times kids will like to stir up some **** by running home and telling theior parents that their teacher was telling them that Creationism is a scientific discipline that is better than Evolution. (SOmetimes kids can be real pains in the asses cause they often arent stupid and they often like to make trouble).
Teachers are always walking fine lines of how they present all of this stuff and to present the historical development of any science is only correct because to present only the science in a fashion that is sort of
"This is the only valid theory and it was just presented to us by some "mind control" department" is obviously equally ridiculous.
We discussed this several times in the past when we had been visited by a person name of "Real Life" who was quite a well informed Creationist and who tried to make valid arguments for teaching Creationism AS science.
Teaching the "evolution of evolution" can become a topic that gets some teachers in trouble so many of the state teachers colleges do offer sevral NSF (National SCience Foundation) summer programs on the history of earth and biological sciences.

The efforts that have been engaged by The Creationists IDers that led up to the Dover Pa case are unique in that there was a concerted effort by the school board to imply that ID is a valid alternative theory to Evolution. This was a constitutional violation and, while the whole thing could have been given a pass had the ID section been presented in a purely historical framework, it wasnt.
I am a little pissed at the way the teacchers in the science faculty were kind of hard headed and didnt try to modify the segment to discuss as a piece of history and then they could have dissed the "supplemental resources" (The book entitled "Of Pandas and PEople) as something that a religious organization was pushing and , that this resource has no real validity in a science course like "Ours"

The US Constitution doesnt forbid anything of what I mentioned. It only forbids that this kind of information is presented as a competing theory or a fact because it is interpreted to be entirely religious in nature and therefore , while ones right to worship is protected, one has no implied right to proselytize ones religion in any public ed forum .

AS wweve discussed many times before, We are very strict in our interpretations that surround our various first amendment rights (speech, press, religion, petition, assembly). Our religious rights clauses guarantee to us the rights of :
1free expression thereof (we call that the freedom OF and FROM religion clause)
2prevent the establishment of a "State religion" (implied to include endorsements of any specific credo)

Weve made way too juch of how we present our science segments that I think that weve forgotten that the teachers who are trying to give a reasoned viewpoint by presenting all this **** as historical information are actually walking a tightrope with schoolboards , parent, newspapers, and nosy citizens just sitting and waithing for someone to **** up and present the religious view as an endoresement. (The "Lemon" test )

Many times we hear of disciplanary actions against teachers whove apparently "crossed the line" in an effort to be historically accurate and to present their kids with a view that this science **** didnt just drop from the sky. I applaud those teachers who do that knowing that their careers are in jeopardy if some douche bag school board takes too strong a view and only wishes to avoid any controversy and just take the easy way out by not mentioning ANYTHING.

Ive never endorsed keeping our mouths shut because the entire history of how DArwin got to where he wound up and how weve built on that in the ensuing 200 years is a fascinating piece of the history of science. Here , on one hand , we tell our kids that evolution and natural selection is THE GREATEST IDEA OF THE LAST MILLENIUM and then we assume that we cant tell em why.

I disagree. Murder, rape, child molestation, violence, drugs, theft, lying...how are these different depending on religion or where you live in the USA ?

And this is why low-life parents raise low-life kids without any interference until juvy court or gaol.

It would possibly, but I am concerned of diluting the message with contradictions between religions. Your way would be seen as many to convert or dilute religious kids. By teaching the history of religions, I think a more subtle similar message can be conveyed.

May I add my endorsement? That sounds like a great idea.
I've said this before but I really think the USA needs a national curriculum. How is it justifable to have say two people living a mile apart across state lines have totally different requirements for educational subjects ?
Perhaps education departments need bigger balls to support teaches more.
How about using the class rooms for voluntary participants ?
There are kids who are educated in creationism and when they go to Uni they see the truth. This has produced great anguish at home. I believe some creationists want to have their own uni's ? Is that correct ?

Excellent presentation, FM. Also as an historical prespective--when i was in high school in a small town, in the "Bible belt," and then in university--none of this was ever mentioned. There was no reference to creation, there was no challenge of the validity of evolutionary theoy. To an extent, the religious lunatic fringe has won a kind of battle in that it has become a question at all. The evidence from Epperson and Edwards is that it is only in the last three or four decades that this attack has been launched on evolutionary theory. Probably the creationists were complacent after Scopes' trial and only slowly awoke to the fact that evil, ,godless evolution had crept into the educational sanctum.

Ionus, I know it has taken quite a deal of effort on to get this thread back on track. (And I'm very pleased that this has finally occurred.) I'd prefer it stay that way.
I can already see that this subject (teaching of religion/morals in state schools) has the potential to be quite a diversion from the intended subject & I really don't want to be part of such a diversion. (Any more than I already have been, I mean.)
So if you want to discuss this issue further, on another thread created specifically for the purpose, I'd be more than happy to participate. I think quite a few others A2Kers might be interested, too.
But, personally, I'd prefer not to continue this discussion here.

There you go Olga. That's moral preaching. I think schools are over-funded. Would you be a beneficiary of more funding? Where would you get the money from? You have already increased government spending on pilots for ships.

And there's a moral selectivity in the phrase "all major world religions ". The human sacrifice religions were pretty major in their time. So also "your desired objectives". That's a moral position.



You would need amoral teachers. And you have another moral position there. You're just using words how you want to. Your post is shot through with a morality. And a confused one. It seems to rest on "hopefully".

Spendius, can I refer you to my post addressed to Ionus above?
(No point in saying pretty much the same thing to you, too.)
Thank you.

You are joking I presume fm.

They already do. Theres Liberty U, Bob Jones, AveMAria U etc. (I never hear of these schools having football teams though). One or two of these colleges always have trouble getting their biology programs accredited. (Each unioversity's academic program is "acrredited" or given validation to offer degrees, by regional accreditation foundations.


I used to be against national curricula because of all of this "culture war" **** that is going on in La and Texas (and elsewhere). BUT , if the effect of a national curriculum is to standardize the programs (without killing the creativity of the teachers) Id maybe be for it. In Pa, the curriculum is so segmented and each segment has specific information that must be presented, the opportunities for real creativity (by which new teaching ideas are developed) can be thwarted by an overly paternal ed board. My friend who includes that history segment which includes some religious history, has had his entire syllabus scrutinized by the ed board police because it was understood that he was teaching something that was perhaps leaning toward religion. He wasnt and his syllabus has stood up and gained advocates at the state level who also agree that the historical accounts give a science some "roots" and this helps tha kids understand what all the yelling is about.

I dont endorse going any further than that in the science programs. Im not sure where we would want to include morality (and why would we want to do so)
There are several teachers of the earlier grades on these boards. They may have better ideas of what are actually the goals of the various "family and community relations" programs that are taught as units in th elementary and junior highs.

There really is no way of proceeding in practice with that level of equivocation.

THats the real hell of it all. Remember though, as recently as the 1920's evolution was NOT allowed to be taught in most schools at all (except, and this is the real laugh, in the prep schools which always looked forward to producing the "intellectuals " and professionals).
So, there ws a whole string of cases that finally set the course. I wonder though, had evolution not been forbidden to be taught originally, and the curricula would have merely developed as a natural couyrse of events, wpould we be having all these court tests today. Its a silly question because (IMHO)we can only get real ideas about this by reading some of the dissenting opinions like Scallia in Edwards where he felt that the coincidence of religious doctrines does not actually endorse any religious doctrine.

Totally unfounded assertion thats a favorite dodge of yours spendi. Weve got priests using their little charges for personal sexual gratification. Weve got Evangelical religious leaders being investigated for all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, and weve got religious leaders in third world countries responsible for stoning women whove been raped because "Its the tribal way"

PUHLEEZE give me no recitations about yer "amoral teachers".
Its freedom OF and FROM religion that I like, Ill put the morals of atheists up against yer best Bible thumpers.

As Frank Collins said in the recent pub
"As EVangelicals weve( gotta get with evolution and an old earth )or else were going to be margianalized as a mere cult"

I know that youre convinced that we owe everything to Christianity but Id like to think that were not as progenically restricted in our civilization as that. Id like to think that weve benefitted from the Greeks, the Arabs, Romans The Slavs and Celts and the AMerinds (after all we all like punkins , corn, and some of you like tobacco).

Got to add the Chinese to that list, for gunpowder if nothing else - and note what we call Arabic numerals are known in Arabic as Hindi numerals, this being where they got them from, though Arabs came up with great mathematicians who adapted them to more advanced uses. But - I'm sure you're familiar with "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and never mind the author's mind-numbing political correctness - the West would never have taken over the planet were it not for the Greeks. This is the first known calculator, manufactured in Minos's Crete 1,700 years BC. That place was destroyed by a geological event, neighboring Thera's catastrophic volcanic explosion and tsunami wave, but mathematical knowledge had spread to the Greek mainland by then.

http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/gungermsteel.html