Wednesday, 11 February 2009
-
More Americans For Teaching Both For and Against Evolution
by mr palm
A recent Zogby poll showed that increasingly more Americans are in favor of teaching the scientific evidence against evolution when the scientific evidence for Charles Darwin's theory is taught.
Over 78% of likely voters agreed with the statement: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. Also, 80% of those polled agree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.
What effect, if any, do you think these trends will have on the future of education and faith in America?
-
recommend
- recs 2
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: mr_palm
- Name: mr_palm
- About Me: I want to encourage, entertain, and challenge others in new and meaningful ways. I'm a big fan of music, college football, geeky stuff, and food.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 15 Views: 0 27751 Comments: 0 1177 View all posts by mr_palm
Comments (436)
Helping to create a nation of scientific illiterates. Hope you enjoy your trip to Third World status.
I believe in evolution, but believe that, without promoting any specific religion, Creationist theory should be taught, as well. It would make our children better able to form their own beliefs, and know why.
I think it's important that education teaches both sides of the coin on this issue. That way, students can choose which they want to believe and have the freedom to synthesize their own ideas.
Critical discernment is the only intelligent way to teach.
You can teach Plato, but you should also explain how his ideas changed over ages of criticism. Ditto for literary research regarding famous novels--Moby Dick, anyone? There are many interpretations of life, and it is not the education system's job to teach absolutes in this area, but to provide students with the means to reach their own enlightenment.
As long as both are taught equally, which I do not think that will happen because of the general bias of the educator and the entire institution.
I think we spend far too much time on this topic in school period. I mean, really, what's more useful in the long run: theories about how the planet formed or knowing how the human body works?
It's like how kids spend months and months learning about volcanic rock and the specific definitions of "insect" versus "bug" but then they don't even understand how their own body works. It's appalling.
Seriously. Who comes up with these curriculums?
I'm inclined to agree with CanadianBroad...raising a nation of scientifically illiterate students...then again, I'm not entirely sure anything can stop that anymore...Americans do seem opposed to knowledge...whatever, moot point.
I think students should be exposed to all the theories out there in regards to creation/evolution and creation/big bang, etc.
That said, I think teachers will teach whatever they want to teach, so I'm not sure how big an effect any policy action would really have....
The poll shows that Americans are in favor of some academic openess, which is a good thing. Maybe they're tired of people like Canadian broad who, rather than address the claims of the other side, just call them ignorant. If the mainstream scientific community is as right as they claim, they should be happy to get the chance to put this argument to rest once and for all.
I think both should be taught equally.
I think schools should teach how to think, not what to think.
If there are scientific objections to a scientific theory, well then of course they should be brought up in a science class! Methinks that's called the scientific method. To stifle the spirit of inquiry and dissent would be irrational and unscientific.
If evolutionary theory is everything its proponents say it is, then it can certainly weather a few scientific challenges. If it isn't, then the most reasonable and scientific thing to do is to find another model that fits the evidence better. That's how thought progresses.
So, why wouldn't someone want anyone to be exposed to evidence that might not fit with their favorite evolutionary model? Hmmm... dare I say "blind faith"? "Indoctrination"? "Irrationality"? Nasty words, those....
(I'll add that religious challenges to a scientific theory ought to be discussed in religion or philosophy class rather than science class. I do think they ought to be discussed, though.)
@stuartandabby@xanga - Yay!
There is very great evidence against evolution.... in many cases logic for example :) How did the girraffe eat while her neck was growing, and how would an elephant drink without the trunk because of his short little neck? And where in the world are the skeletons of the transistion phases? I'm not refering to the man made ones built from a pigs tooth :\
As much as I disagree with Darwin's theory (who in fact said he had no proof to support it) I believe it should be taught, as well as creation.
Schools do focus entirely too much on things that are impractical in the real world. I would love to see a class based on logical reasoning, this would be practical in teaching common since :)
@stuartandabby@xanga - This.
Teaching students the critical thinking and analysis skills they need would be much more beneficial.
Can someone remind me what exactly there is to dispute on the evolutionary process itself? Last I checked, species go extinct and new ones crop up per the processes of evolution. Are there any non faith-based theories other than evolution that explain this? Evolution SHOULD be taught in schools as it's arguably the most important part of the Biological sciences.
Evolution should not be confused with abiogenesis. They are different. Abiogenesis is the discussion on how life started and, from what I can remember from high school, wasn't ever strongly addressed. The ideas of how life started should be presented in biology classes, of course, but only the theories that are non-faith-based should be brought up. The faith-based reasons should, and with good reason, be left to the philosophy classes.
I saw that news story this morning. There's a bonus statistic for you -- the percentage of democrats is higher than republicans who'd like to see evolution and intelligent design taught side by side.
Like @godofthelost@xanga , I'm the same. I'm not aware that there was scientific evidence against evolution (if any). I would like to hear some (or research when I have time. Personally, I was taught only the theory of evolution. However, unless it is an actual class like theology, religion based theories (like creationsim) should not be taught (since it isn't under the category of science).
@Clay_in_His_Hands - // How did the girraffe eat while her neck
was growing, and how would an elephant drink without the trunk because
of his short little neck? //
Why would you define an elephant as a creature without a trunk? By species definition, it is not an elephant. The same with your reference to a giraffe.
//And where in the world are the skeletons of
the transistion phases? I'm not refering to the man made ones built
from a pigs tooth :\//
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
//As much as I disagree with Darwin's theory (who in fact said he had no proof to support it)//
I need an actual quote, please.
//Schools do focus entirely too much on things that are impractical in the real world. //
The theory of evolution is applied to great effect in medicine. It's used in agriculture to predict crop strains and in species conservation to help scientists understand the likely paths of the endangered species. In cancer research, evolution is applied to our understanding of carcinogenesis (formation of cancer) and is being used in cancer cure research. Flu vaccines? Thank our understanding of evolution for that one - it helps us predict which flu strains are likely to arise, giving us time to prepare the right vaccine. It's not perfect, but 70-80% success rates are still incredibly good.
Even in computer science and artificial intelligence, evolutionary algorithms and genetic algorithms are used in optimization processes, ranging from artificial neural networks to highly-developed engineering design software. These algorithms apply the fundamental principles of evolution (mutations and natural selection) to do their job.
To say that teaching evolution is impractical is to ignore the impact that the theory of evolution has had on biology and medicine, and on many other fields as well.
Every single "scientific" argument against evolution I've ever heard from the creationist/ID side was based on misunderstandings or blatant disregard for actual scientific facts and evidence.  Their arguments are scientific sounding, and that's intentional.  Your average layman will assume they're legitimate because he doesn't know any better (and is too lazy to unbiasedly research it for himself), and therefore will be easily influenced to believe in creationism/ID.  The creationist's primary method of arguing against evolution is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, my friends... the appeal to ignorance, and it's a fallacy.  That is not science!
Sure, there are some holes in the theory of evolution, and they should be pointed out and discussed... without wild conjecture. Â Fallacy-laden anti-science teachings should not be allowed in a science class.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Natural selection and mutation are not debated by ID people. They are observable processes. The main argument is that they alone cannot bring about new species with ever-expanding gene pools. Natural selection tends to produce smaller gene pools while mutation produces handicaps.
@methodElevated@xanga - Ever heard of the composition fallacy?
@stuartandabby@xanga - //Natural selection tends to produce smaller gene pools//
Can you elaborate? Keep in mind that natural selection does not work independently of mutations; even if the gene pool grows smaller, mutations still occur, continually providing texture to the gene pool.
// while mutation produces handicaps.//
Most mutations are neutral in nature. Some mutations do produce beneficial results, and some deleterious. Natural selection would naturally ensure that the bad mutations don't last long, and that the good mutations tend to last longer. For example, carriers of the recessive sickle-cell anemia gene bear a beneficial trait; they do not express sickle-cell anemia, but they experience a resistance to malaria. Similar arguments can be found for people with limited HIV resistance, etc. - for more info, see here -
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
@stuartandabby@xanga - Yes. However, I can only go by my observations; while extensive, I cannot say they're complete.  So in that respect, I suppose you're right to say that it's unfair of me to assume they're all full of crap because it would be impossible for me to hear every single argument from every single creationist that has ever existed.  I can only speak from experience, as I noted in my original comment.  It was meant to be a generalization, not a fact.
Here's a good series from PBS that presents and debunks many of the ID ideas: Â http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.htmlÂ
It's a nice summary.
I think it is a great step for America to be allowed to discuss ALL aspects of science and "teaching both sides" in the classrooms may actually help people value Truth more than most Americans do today.
However, I do not believe this will have much effect upon the American faith. I have met a few people who were persuaded by "evidences" in science; Case for Creation by Lee Stroble is one common example of someone who was literally disillusioned by modern teachings and once the truth was discovered it opened the door to a conversion; However I think the cause of this effect was merely catalyzed by science, but this work seemed (by his own testimony) already there to some small degree.
I do, however, hope that the Truth is taught and that science can be once again presented fairly and without bias.
teaching the evidence against evolution is good, teaching creation is bad. NEVER, never never never should public schools be allowed to teach any religion. and also, if we teach creation, you gotta keep going. you have to teach the native american creation story, the islamic creation story, buddhist, hindu, zoroastrian... you get the picture.
in short, teaching evidence against = good. teaching creation = bad. or you can ask kent hovind, the great creationist leader, who is now in jail for tax evasion. i want someone like HIM supporting my views! :)
Both sides should be taught to promote student thinking. Just teaching one side creates a class of narrow-minded individuals who fully believe their theory is the absolute truth. There are holes in the theory of evolution and it requires faith to believe in as much as the creation theory does. They are both beliefs.
Honestly, I feel cheated by the American Government. They taught evolution as FACT all throughout my education, and it wasn't until I went to college that I found out it was a seriously flawed theory. And yet they still continue to teach it that way. It makes me wonder if I was blinded in any other areas of my education.
I learned in biology the basics of evolutions and the strong/weak arguments and opposition. I'm a Christian, but I strongly believe in evolution. I do think that opposing theories could be taught more because that could be interesting, but Creationism should not be taught in a science classroom since there's no real science in it.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - My intent wasn't to debate the validity of the claim. My main point was that the principles of natural selection and mutation being applied to those algorithms doesn't hinge on evolutionary thought per se, since there are those who don't hold to Darwinian evolution yet still recognize those observable processes. Perhaps I should have stopped with the first two sentences.
@methodElevated@xanga - I guess I just don't understand the purpose of your first post then. If you were trying to sway fellow Xangans, you were using the same ploy you were denouncing.
That video hardly touches on the actual debate.