Soooo…it’s a “Right vs. Left” thing? Y’all on the Right want to jump on this particular wagon?
The OP talks about the distinction between “believing in” evolution or not, about young-earth beliefs, and about those who view the Bible as a putative source of evidence. “Knowing about” evolution in the sense of having a detailed understanding of theory is a red herring and was never the point – few of us have that level of understanding and I agree it’s relatively unimportant. But I am certainly not “overstating” the importance of the anti-science bias that outright evolution denial implies. It’s a lot like climate change – I wouldn’t expect the average person to be able to describe and quantify all the pathways of global energy transport or write out the radiative transfer equations, but I would fervently hope that the average voter would accept that what our national and international science bodies are telling us is credible and important.
So in that respect, no, I am certainly not overstating the importance of science in general, as you so amusingly put it. Most of us believe that governance and public policy should be based on science and factual evidence and not on the ignorance of crazies. Scientific ignorance isn’t a cultural issue, and the right to rational governance isn’t a “culture war”. And it’s much, much more than just global warming and vaccinations – anti-science and rampant ignorance has rendered stupid decisions on issues like abortion, stem cell research, health care, end-of-life counseling, life support issues, euthanasia, and even water fluoridation and blood transfusions.
In a science class at a university*, the student who feels he will be damned if he professes to believe in evolution should answer according to his conscience. If this means he will fail and not receive his degree–good. Good for him, he got what he wanted (not to be damned). Good for us, we didn’t give someone a degree who doesn’t deserve one.
I agree with the general thrust of the idea that the real point is to teach a way of thinking rather than a set of facts. But one has not demonstrated this way of thinking if all they are able to do is imagine what it would lead others (i.e. their professors) to say. If a student hasn’t figured out that it’s not just that scientists say evolution is true because they like to think a certain way, but rather it is that this way of thinking is extremely valid, and valuable, and demonstrates that evolution is true to the best of any of our knowledge, then the student should be excused from educated society.
There are plenty of wonderful lives available to be had outside that society. It’s not like I’m relegating him to the trash heap or anything like that.
*Public schools, being forced on students, present some sticky issues here.
Does not seem like a safe assumption. There are plenty* of people with legit PhDs in physics and biology who seriosly and sincerely totally reject evolution, old-earth science and so forth.
*A small number in the grand scheme, but far from zero
Let the students learn to deal with reality or find a private Christian school that teaches woo.
I’ve always liked the word “woo” and it pains me to see it picking up such a negative connotation.
-VM
Consider the following elementary concepts, all of which used everyday and are easily explained using a model of a round earth revolving around the sun. It seems to me that they are not explained so easily using the alternative models.
[ul]
[li] The idea of time-zones, local time, and time difference between two locations. This is crucial in most international travel. If I am travelling to the US from India, I want to know whether my flight would land in the morning or the night, and need to be aware of the possibility of a jet lag. [/li][li] How climate varies with latitude. It’s hot near the equator, and gets colder when one gets near the poles. Canada is colder than Mexico. [/li][li] Flight routes. In a flat earth model, if I want to travel from San Francisco to Tokyo, I would need to travel across the US, across the Atlantic, and across Europe and Asia. IRL, I’d just fly in the opposite direction across the Pacific. [/li][li] Historically, this provides the context for Columbus’ discovery of the Americas. I’m guessing it might also be necessary for understanding the Pacific Ocean theatre of the Second World War. [/li][/ul]
I would agree wholeheartedly with this (and I’m also a PhD-level math person, for whatever that’s worth). The caveat I would make, though, is that if you’re not willing or able to learn calculus, then you don’t get to participate in math. For example, you then won’t be able to learn any physics. That’s also fine, but it means that you’ll have to stay away from pontificating about, say, relativity on the Interwebs and badgering people about your setup of rotating mirrors on a treadmill that would totally disprove Einstein if you could just get someone to help you with the math. Similarly, if you have not studied evolution and don’t understand the evidence and arguments for it, then you should stay out of discussion of evolution. At that point, you don’t know enough about the topic for your opinion to matter. And that’s perfectly fine if, say, you’re a physicist and don’t have anything to do with the study of evolution or biology in general.
The major difference, of course, is that no one’s lobbying the government to take relativity out of schools. I’m fine with people being ignorant about science; I just don’t want them to drag the rest of us down with them.
Give it some time… and space. 
In this case, wouldn’t they be gleefully jumping under this particular wagon ?
Calculus? Fuck calculus. I’d be happy if the average person understood statistics. That’s actually something that is useful, especially when setting policy or decided how to arrange your life.
As for teaching, of course we teach evolution. Just because it’s not important, doesn’t mean that we don’t teach it straight up, with no nod to religion. In science class, we teach science. Period. No apologies, no caveats, no hedging. Evolution is a fact the same way gravity is a fact.
But let’s not go overboard, as a few like to do, and “stick it to the fundies” by insisting that we require a knowledge of evolution in order graduate from HS.
I disagree with the general sentiment that evolution is hard or counter-intuitive. Only if you focus on nitty gritty details, which you can do for any simple scientific idea. A bright 8 year old can understand evolution fine.
This reminds me of people who rail against the theory of relativity for promoting moral relativism.
Was the gay angle a short hand for promoting heathen secularism and undermining Biblical morality? Because people have been arguing over evolution way before most people cared about gay rights.
I disagree. I think it appeals to all sorts of people, especially anyone with hippie dippie inclinations. It’s poetic.
Arcite, most people on the Left believe that God is consistent with the truth. If some believers in God go around insisting that He is not consistent with the truth, then it is those believers, not the believers in truth, who are setting their God up for failure. The ones who are taking action to destroy Christianity are actually those fighting against evolution.
EDIT:
Are you arguing that biology (or “Life Science”, for those on the slow track) should not be a required course?
Somehow the irony of this thread bugs me.
The theory of evolution clearly believes that traits that are more suitable for the environment survive and the traits that are not suitable fade away. New traits are random and evolution happens over **LONG **time periods.
Yet we are uncomfortable to apply the same theory to the evolution of beliefs. If the Theory of Evolution is more suitable for the evolving social structure - it will gain more and more believers, if not - it will remain limited to the precious few.
Whether it is evolution of species or evolution of beliefs - it will take place over ***long ***periods of time. A species cannot will itself to acquire new traits just because it will suit better to the environment - similarly collective or social beliefs cannot be transformed overnight just because it is more logical.
How are you getting that from what John Mace posted? There’s more to high school biology than evolution. My state biology regents exam has maybe 4 (multiple choice) questions that touch on evolution, and typically two of them will be something completely non-controversial for evolution deniers. You could leave them all blank on principle if it comes to that and still ace the science requirement.
Not if you go into any level of understanding of it, there’s not.
Not really. Evolution/natural selection can happen pretty damn fast, and in fact is typically the norm. Once a species gets a definite edge over another, the latter typically goes endangered within the space of a few generations.
For example, there’s a fungus growing in the Chernobyl reactor right now that essentially feeds on radiation. It’s a completely unprecedented (as far as we know) form of life/metabolism. Yet the disaster at Chernobyl happened, what, thirty years ago, give or take ?
Seriously.
It’s rather sickening to see people calling themselves ‘good Christians’ and refusing to use God’s greatest gift to humanity - our intellect - to do anything other than come up with ever more convoluted ways to call God a liar.
It’s possible to understand evolution, and not believe in the creation of species by evolution. It’s also possible to understand diversity without accepting evolution.
Furthermore, it is possible to accept evolution, and the creation of species, without understanding eithor. I’ve seen some ludicrous examples over the years (mostly from the biological side), but also just straight ordinary physicists who don’t pretend to have any knowledge of biology or philosophy.
And finally, a great deal of basic biology was determined by people who did not work in the context of evolution. A great deal of biology is current, experimental, chemical, lab-based, observational, or some other thing that does not depend on an understanding of ontology.
??? Evolution is foundational to biology. It’s not about sticking it to the fundis. It’s about providing a high school level science education. IIRC, I was introduced to natural selection in 7th grade: it shouldn’t be considered off limits.
It’s one thing to say that there are lots of people who will never need to know calculus, evolutionary theory, basic car repair, Shakespeare, Twain, personal finance or Copernican theory. But when you teach an entire high school class something (or leave it out), you are also affecting the large minority who will end up in a STEM field.
JM: Do you have any comments on GIGObuster’s cites in post 12?
My college bio professor told us (curtly) that he didn’t care what we believed, but that we would be tested on evolution. This was one of my first (albeit circumspect) introductions to fundamentalist creationism. I had thought it went out in the 1920s.
I’d ditch the attitude but basically give his 15-30 second speech near the beginning of the semester. No need to modify the testing. If students want to put asterisks on their test saying, “I don’t believe this”, they can knock themselves out: I wouldn’t penalize them.