No. I’m thinking of some posters* here, in threads past, who thought we could have some sort of “test of knowledge” for graduating HS, and that evolution would be part of it. I remember replying that even if we did that, the “evolution” part would be one small part of one subject, and couldn’t realistically be made to cause some to flunk out.
*I don’t want to imply that it was a common idea, but maybe one or two posters.
I think that if you really want to make knowledge of evolution seem more important than it actually is, you can do so.
The only reason this thread is 100+ posts long is because evolution is a politically important subject in the USA, which it isn’t in most modern countries.
Objectively speaking, there is no reason evolution is more centrally important an understanding to anyone than, say, calculus, or microeconomics, or Shakespeare, or good cardiovascular training. Clearly a person is much more well rounded for knowing such things, and they are rather important if you intend to be a physicist, price analyst, English teacher or personal trainer. But you don’t NEED an understanding of any of them.
Honestly, how many people do you know who really understand evolution? Knowing it’s a thing and that it is true isn’t really an understanding of it. I know many smart people who are not religious nuts who assume evolution is true but couldn’t really explain the mechanics of it, just as I am sure most of the people in this thread don’t know what “comparative advantage” is despite it being a centrally important concept in economics and something that should affect one’s perspective on matters of political importance.
As I pointed before, what is going on in medicine agriculture and the environment is a growing realization that evolution is the way to go to make advances that were not considered before.
When just about half of Americans do not think that evolution is real I think it is just more than just an opinion when one points out that many discoveries and advances are being missed thanks to the wilful ignorance of many.
Did you notice that your second cite was someone making fun of unscientific thinking by using anecdotes (instead of actual data)?
We teach evolution in schools in the US. What else do you guys want? You can’t force kids to remember it when they’re older if it doesn’t have practical value to them. If it DID have practical value, then they probably would remember it. This is no different from the typical kid who takes 2 years of Spanish in HS, and 10 year later is lucky if he can remember anything other than "como esta usted?
And of course that was the most important cite. :rolleyes:
The practical value is for the group, nation or world. Sure, there will be many that will not have a use for it, but just as we can not predict who will be the next big biologist we can not predict also who will be next big politician with a wilful ignorance of science that does affect not only the well being of our democracy, but also to the well being of our economy in the long run.
We don’t. OK, I’m sure we do in a few places, but we’re not supposed to. SCOTUS rulings have been clear on that.
If you’re worried about private schools, well, not much we can do about that.
In my state we have (had, I think still do) a “this is only a theory” note in the front of the science textbooks that was definitely intended to undermine the theory.
That’s that, then-topic closed. Thank ghod there’s no effort on the other side to put creationism back into schools.
:dubious:
Additional info:
Here’s what we got in textbooks in 1995 or 1996 (I was in highschool then, and thought it ridiculous):
2001 brought us this text, but I was out of school then, and don’t know if it was an addition or replacement
I think there was a 2005 update, but can’t find the text. But some states will most definitely do whatever they can get away with in this arena. We still have a disclaimer.
This is a fallacy of creationist bullshit. New traits are not random. Chemical processes are not just a roiling mass of chaos, they proceed in a relatively orderly fashion. We are not even fully certain about how mutagenesis occurs, but it may be possible that environmental effects drive evolution more proactively than just waiting for the new model to appear and take over. The whole “random” thing is an attempt to belittle the origins idea on the basis of “what are the chances?”. It misrepresents what really happens.
It was already there. “污” means “dirty” or “corrupt”. “惡” means “evil” (although its pronunciation varies, like “污”, it can be pronounce “wu” in both Mandarin and Cantonese).
Beg pardon? We already have those tests. Around here, it’s called the Ohio Graduation Test. I don’t know what it’s called in other states, but I’m sure you have an equivalent. And you can’t very well leave an entire broad subject, that takes up a full year for all students, off of that test.
And if someone gets every question about evolution wrong, do they fail to graduate? The idea was to prevent people from graduating if they didn’t “accept” evolution. Point being that the “evolution” part of any broad-based test like that would be such a small fraction of the total that you could fail that whole part but still pass.
Even if you don’t you just have to parrot back the “party line”. The hypnotized never lie.
I’m not sure if anyone was actually making that particular point – I certainly was not. There is a much larger point that was made by myself and quite a few others, which is that scientific ignorance and a general kind of anti-science hostility has negative impacts on society and is especially dangerous in a democracy, where a generally informed public is key to sensible public policy, and where like-minded ignoramuses will be elected and will determine policy on many important issues, not just evolution, as I previously stated. It leads to the condition that was warned against in the cover story of New Scientist a few years ago, with the headline “Unscientific America” and the subhead “Retreat into darkness”. Is this the kind of society anyone wants to live in? It affects public policy on a wide range of issues ranging from environment to many aspect of health care.
Someone pointed out that there is some tiny minority of apparently educated biologists who claim disbelief in evolution. I know that there are also a few (not many, thankfully) with Ph.Ds in climate-related physical sciences who are climate contrarians if not outright denialists. I think the explanation of both is the same. There is no way that these people could possibly believe some of what they are spouting. In both cases I think we’re dealing with motivated hypocrisy and willful mendacity. The motivations may vary but interest in truth is never among them.
Considering its one of the most important things in biology and overlaps with a lot of other fields, I’d say its really important to understand the basis and believe it. Lack of those things create people like the current GOP, whose anti-science stance is slowly killing the Earth and mankind in general
Drafting test questions so as to avoid alienating anti-evolution christians creates a false balance / false equivalence, which in turn strengthen’s the anti-evolutions christians’ belief rather than forcing them to face reality.
I was referencing a thread we had on a similar subject long before you joined.
Even worse, the kind of crap that appears in some fundie-influenced textbooks that was quoted by Tzigone above is just absolutely appalling – wishy-washy pandering to fundie ignorance and managing at the same time to obfuscate the meaning of the word “theory” in science. And when the textbook itself fails to sufficiently pander to the fundies, some states have mandated stickers required to be affixed to the offending science textbook which makes the same sort of statement in even stronger terms. Although I suppose if a textbook is especially clear about the scientific understanding of evolution, a bit of ritual book-burning might be in order.
I’m just glad I live in a place where evolution-denial is only ever heard as a form of hyperbolic insult to imply the alleged ignorance of one’s political opponents rather than being anything that any sane person actually believes…
Politician “A”: If “B” really believes that, then the honorable member demonstrates about the same level of scientific understanding as creationists and evolution-deniers.
Politician “B”: Mr. Speaker, I demand that “A” withdraw that vile insult! 
ETA: That was a reply to Muffin.