Oh, as I outlined in the other thread on this subject, I don’t think history is ‘essential’. Nor biology, basically.
Many things are taught in public schools, I feel, because 1) it helps the kids practice general learning skills and 2) by covering a broad range of subjects at least shallowly, the kids are given the essential foundations for just about any career imaginable. If there were some compelling reason to cut things down to no-frills education, then you could just cover the three R’s. I just don’t think that such a compelling reason exists.
This might be **semantics ** but I “think”, history and basic science is essential. If the vast majority of kids don’t have at least a little familiarity with a wide range of subjects than the work forcea and the country will suffer greatly.
I would also include Music, Gym & Art and some foriegn language. I would even include a basic shop class. Could be no more than this is a screwdriver, this is a philips head, this is what a lathe is used for etc.
And you’d be wrong. While all of these classes might provide 90% of the people who take them with some small, noticeable improvement in quality of life, lacking them does not significantly impair anyone. We’re not talking about ‘things that might help’, we’re talking about what is ESSENTIAL. I never had a shop class. Hasn’t hurt me yet.
We’re talking about basic high school curriculum here. I’m in a Ph.D program in Biology and I’ve never taken a class on ecology. Go figure. Natural selection is directly under the purview of evolution and arguably could be considered synonymous. I think high school students should be lectured on how certain traits can be advantageous and how that modulates fitness.
Now, I’ve taken a few evolution classes and, quite frankly, I’ve never been a fan of the classes. It is often presented in a ridiculously complex fashion that causes people to be turned off from it. I think “The Selfish Gene” works admirably in conveying the basic precepts of evolution in an easy-to-understand manner.
It should be mentioned in here that even the most ardent young-earth creationists do not deny that some organisms change over time. For example, they would not object to teaching how bacteria or cancer cells can build up resistance to treatments Thus, things like this are a red herring in this discussion.
The only part of evolution that causes controversy (and thus presumably the only part that might need to be kept out of the curriculum) is whether or not humans evolved from non-humans.
But it is a proven fact that humans evolved from non-humans and answering the question of where humans came from seems like a no-brainer as to what should be included in a high school curriculum. It makes no sense to keep it out of the curriculum because some parents don’t like the facts.
If some parents insist that the earth is flat, would that be an argument for not teaching that the earth is roundish? I don’t see denying the proven age of the earth or the proven fact of common descent as being any different (or worthy of deference) than denying the proven shape of the earth or the orbits of the planets.
Very good. So do you now agree now that evolution is essential to biology? If so, we can consider whether an understanding of biology is any good to mankind.
Weren’t you condemning other posters for absolute statements recently?
You are defining Essential one way and I am defining it in another.
While you are welcome to think I am wrong, you are completely dismissing my point of view. I happen to disagree with your essentials. I could take your theory a step further and say a large portion of the students will be doing manual labor and don’t really need the 3 R’s. Why do you need math, a calculator can do it. Why do you need reading, you can watch TV and get books on tape. Obviously I don’t believe this, but what is the minimum ESSENTIAL education.
I think people should have a general well-rounded education that includes an understanding of who they are and where they came from. I also think that evolution is the narrative arc that gives meaning and context to individual phenomena like photosynthesis, and that the reason for the diversity of species is actually more essential (i.e., interesting) than the specifics of how plants create sugar out of light. But these aren’t things one can “prove” at any level. I feel better off for knowing, but by what criteria are we measuring “essential knowledge” or “essential understanding”? Sure, people can serve me hamburgers and pay their taxes knowing very little indeed, but thing I like about this country is that it was the first to push public education as a fundamental human right, and I think that education should be more than making people efficient servants to the captains of industry. There’s really no way to have a meaningful debate when what is “essential” can be moved around and increasingly narrowed like an MLB strike zone.
What is actually done in a “typical” public schools these days? At what grade level is evolution introduced, and how much detail is covered?
It’s been awhile for me, but I don’t ever remember studying evolution in any of the science classes I took, even in H.S. Biology. FWIW, I went to Catholic school for grades 1-5, then public school for grades 6 - 12. So, unless my memory is wrong, I got a “basic understanding” of Biology w/o studying evolution.
I learned evolution in 5th grade at a Catholic school. They prefaced it by saying, “We don’t actually believe this, but it’s important to teach it because it’s a major scientific theory.”
I think some of the problems you are having with this thread lie with the fact that our reality in fact HAS an excluded middle. There is persistent pressure from religious groups to eliminate teaching about evolution and replace it with intelligent design. Because of this relentless pressure, there is no middle ground. If you exclude evolution, intelligent design will flow into its place. If you exclude intelligent design, the pressure from those who support evolution will lead to its return to the classroom.
There is no middle ground here – the middle is in fact excluded. So people are going to resist any ideas about teaching biology without evolution, even if there’s no proposal to replace it with intelligent design, because they know the proponents of intelligent design will immediately advocate replacing evolution with it, even if you personally do not.
And as a matter of fact, teaching biology without evolution is in fact a clunky and unnatural way of handling the subject. The organizing principle of evolution makes sense of taxonomy, nothing else really does, including intelligent design.
Was it nuns teaching? Because I suspect they have their own religion… Much of what I learned from the nuns about Catholicism is wrong. The official stance of the Catholic Church is that evolution is a scientific fact, and does not contradict any of the Church’s core teachings.