I pay taxes for public education. Public schools are secular institutions and as such are to endorse no religion over another. There is no debate among serious scientists over whether or not evolution occurred. Other states have passed referendums allowing “equal time” for the teaching of “alternative thoeries” about how the diversity of species we see today came about. As stated above, however, there is no serious argument in the scientific community over whether or not evolution happened(not for at least 100 years). There are no viable competeing theories. They are thinly disguised YEC/ID creationism. So, anyone out there see any value in teaching the Judeo-Christian creation myth in biology class? Why equal time for only one alternative hypothesis, why not the parts of slain giants, or the back of a giant turtle? How do you test students on “godidit”? And to sum up, and most importantly, will eliminating the unifying theory of biology really make students better prepared for higher education/scientific research? What about an epidemiologist who dosen’t believe microbes can evolve resistance to anti-microbials? Oh, how I wish this man were straw, but but he is very real. So how about it, can anyone hammer out a reasonable argument for “equal time” science education?
Tom, guess I missed that one. Maybe this topic has been done to death, then. However, there seem to be some very reasonable and intelligent posters of faith on this board. I don’t think its an udefendable position, there are many debateable points in the OP, and from what I can see a good part of the U.S population disagrees with me, or this would be a non-issue. I don’t know, maybe it’s a non-issue on this board. If so, well then it will sink like a stone. Maybe I’m preaching to the choir here, but in real life I often encounter people of the opinion that evolution’s veracity is tenuous at best and as such should not be taught as fact. FWIW, I am not opposed to prayer in school(as long as everyone is not forced to participate) or faith-based student groups, etc.
The reason you should not teach YEC, or ID in science class is the SAME reason you do not teach spanish in math class!
It isn’t science!
I can’t believe in this day and age people are still being railroaded by the vocal minority and their belief that to exercise their religious freedom they must infringe on the rights of others.
The panel that decided this was a good idea should be fired immeadiately. How can they be up there, deciding on the science curriculum when they obviously have no appreciable understanding of the subject matter?!
They don’t understand the very basis of the scientific principle!
**Maybe I’m preaching to the choir here, but in real life I often encounter people of the opinion that evolution’s veracity is tenuous at best and as such should not be taught as fact. **
The last time I checked, evolution is a theory. Since when is something classified as a theory accepted as fact (a law)?
Even plate tectonics are still classified as a scientific theory. It takes a long, long time and a lot of research for something to be considered a law.
SnoopyFan, since plate tectonics is “just a theory,” I assume you will start petitioning for my theory that the continents move around by means of little motors installed round the edges to be included in school curricula?
There are good theories and bad theories. Good theories can be regarded as truth for every day use. Bad theories, like YEC or ID have no place in the classroom.
SnoopyFan: First off, theories don’t become “laws”. A “scientific law” is simply a generalization of observed phenomena that has always held true; for example, the “law of conservation of mass” was an observation that in chemical reactions the total mass of the system, when every input and output has been accounted for, remains unchanged. Even “laws” may be modified; for example, the “law conservation of mass” gave way to the “law of conservation of mass-energy”.
Second, a “theory” isn’t a “guess” and scientists aren’t trying to turn wild “theories” into something solid and respectable like sober “laws”. A theory is an explanatory model which accounts for a wide variety of phenomena and can be used to make predictions about new phenomena. A theory will thus provide the framework to explain why observed laws are as they are.
Finally, in biology there was Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. This was an explanatory model which accounted for many facts concerning the anatomy, behavior, and distribution of organisms. It has been modified and expanded with the incorporation of things Darwin didn’t know about (such as the existence and mechanism of genes) into a better theory called the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Among the things which the modern theory of evolution (which still relies on natural selection as a central explanatory mechanism) is what must call the fact of evolution. (There are many facts of which we can be completely sure even if no one has directly observed them with the unaided human senses; for example, the existence of atoms and molecules would have to be considered a fact at this point.) It is now an established fact that the existing forms of life on Earth are descended from other forms of life; for example, it is a fact that humans are primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc., and are descended from non-human primates, and earlier non-primate mammals, and still earlier non-mammalian vertebrates. This is not a theory anymore; rather the theories must account for how this fact came to be.
I think you are slightly behind the latest news. The term “law” is outmoded in science. Even such venerable and well supported statements as Newton’s “Laws of Motion” turned out to be just extremently useful generalization that are approximations valid only under limited circumstances. True, the limits are pretty wide and not very constraining, but they are limits just the same.
What used to be called “Laws” are now considered “assumtions” or “premises” that are well supported by evidence but are subject to change upon the uncovering of additional evidence.
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation states that there is a force of attraction between massive entities that can be calculated by a certain mathematical formula. Einstein’s work says “no such thing.” What we call gravitational force is merely our observation of things moving along the paths that exist in a curved space-time coordinate system.
Schools are in need are good science teachers. If they are forced to teach Creationism as a science I predict there will be mass resignations. If I absolutely had to teach it, I would show why it doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny in the way that evolution theory does. I believe that would come under the privilege of academic freedom.
At best, it belongs in a comparative religion class.
Are churches and families not having much success in teaching this theory outside of school?
Ever heard of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? How about String Theory or Quantum Theory?
When a theory has stood rigorous scientific scrutiny over time it will be alternately called a fact, theory or more losely a “law”. Darwins theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is in the same category as those theories I listed above.
There is a large % (can’t remember the exact number, but it’s big) of Americans who do not “believe” in evolution. But I’d bet there are as many who, if asked, would not “believe” that an electron can tunnel thru an energy barrier even if it does not appear to have enough energy to do so. In neither of those cases should the lay public’s ignorance of science influence the way we actually teach those subjects to our kids in school.
Send your kids to a private, relgious school if you want them to be taught religion.
The Intelligent Design hypothesis might make more sense if it were called Incredibly Stupid Design instead. Just look at the human body’s gross design flaws:
Backs prone to disk problems
Fragile knee, shoulder, and hip joints
Toes with clearly no purpose (other than a vestigial one)
Birth canal that is so narrow that the major cause of death in women (before the advent of modern medicine) was childbirth
I’m all for it being taught, provided that ID/creationism can be explained further.
That’s the only problem I have with ID, creationism, or any other solutions that quickly involve God or a higher power or what have you: they tend to bring up more questions than they answer.
Basically these ideas resolve quickly to the assumption/axiom of “God did it,” and this leaves the huge question about the workings of God.
More rigorous theories tend to 1) take longer to resolve to an assumption/axiom and 2) tend to explain a large range of phenomena.
Aristotle, for example, figured that everything naturally came to rest. Newton figured that objects tend to keep doing whatever they’re doing, and it takes external forces to affect change. This opened up a can of worms - what are these external forces? - but after explaining those things (such as air resistance, the notion of friction, etc) it broadened definitions and explained more things.
Besides, saying that God did it is almost useless in the application of science, i.e., prediction. The use of evolutionary theory is that we can use it to predict how a species may evolve; creationism/ID/there-is-no-evolution doesn’t really tell us anything about what may or may not happen to a species over time.
My favorite is our eyes. The blood supply and nerves attach to the retina from inside the eye instead of from behind the eye. Thus we have a blins spot where the whole mess passes through the retnia.
That’s certainly not an intelligent way to design something.
Do you doubt the validity of atomic theory too? After all it hasn’t passed onto to a scientific law either. Ever see what an atomic bomb could do? Would you like to be at ground zero, when that sucker goes off? Not bad, for something based on a scientific theory, eh?
The ‘equal time’ protests are (i believe) related to the mentality/behaviour that one often sees displayed by creationists - i.e. “all I have to do to prove creationism true is to keep picking fault with evolution.”
