So, I do use evolution every day. I am getting a PhD in Genetics (as well as an MD). I work on Dictyostelium discoideum, a social amoeba, but we are currently looking at alcoholism. If you can constrain your hypothesis to a big enough degree, then you can do this with valid science.
Anyway, I thought I should put a word in here because it is something I tend to deal with a lot.
The problem with evolution, and the part that “creation scientists” will nail us on, is that we cannot observe so-called macroevolution, or the evolution of one different species from a precursor species. The evolution that we can observe is the change of a species due to a change in environment over several generations. We can also observe what we think and believe to be the footsteps of evolution in the fossil record and the genome. These all hold up, but cannot be used as proof, just as footsteps of a “dinosaur” and a “caveman” walking together in the mud cannot be used to prove dinosaurs and men co-existed.
So, with this in hand, of course evolution should be taught in science class. It should be no more controversial than other theories with ample observational but little direct evidence, like economic theory. Science works around hypotheses which can be tested, and the experiments designed to test them. That’s what we should be teaching in science class – and contrasting this with a testable hypothesis that did not work out (like Lamarck’s theories).
Evolution depends on direct observation of small phenomenon and extrapolation back to larger events over much larger time scales. The observational evidence is wonderful and adds support, but cannot serve to prove the theory.
Example :
We may not be able to see homonids evolving into Homo sapiens sapiens, but we can hypothesize that the shape of the Galapagos finch beak changes after several generations at a drier environment because those with the longer beaks can burrow deeper to find insects in dry wood and have a selective advantage.
The problem with creation science and creationism in general is that no experiments (that I can think of off the top of my head at least) can be designed with a testable hypothesis that does not base in religious dogma. Most of creation science is spent trying to resolve their observed data (moon dust, dinosaur footprints, mutation rates, etc) with biblical theory. This, again, is not science (there is no testable question here). So, teach creationism. Even teach it in science class. It is a useful example of what science isn’t. Stick it on the end of the chapter after the Lamarckian view and abiogenesis. Ask the students to write an essay on any scientific theory, a given hypothesis, and one experiment to test it, so that you can hammer home the difference between what science is and what science isn’t.
