AquaFox

Okay, back in my high school days I remember the teacher lightly treading on the subject of evolution and God's creation, he mentioned both sides with respect....

..... But recently I have talked to some people whose local school has a biology teacher preaching evolution, and the teacher even said that "evolution is the only correct story". Several students have been very unhappy with this teacher for obvious reasons.


Should something be done in this situation, and if so, what action should be done with this teacher from here?


Now, with the separation of church and state and all that, there have been a lot of arguments over the Evolution Vs God debate..... What exactly is going on with this stuff in high schools today? Are teachers allowed to tell students that there religion is fake? This doesn’t seem right to me?



If anyone can fill me in with the rulings and updates on the subject, I thank you in advance...


Feel free to openly discuss and debate as well

__________________


...AquaFox...

politicophile

There is a difference between telling students that their religions are false and telling them that the empirical evidence gathered by biologists proves that some teachings of their religion are false. In our politically correct society, we have a tendency to abandon the truth in the name of not offending anyone. It would be highly unethical, in my opinion, to prevent teachers from speaking the scientifically verifiable truth just because doing so will ruffle a few feathers.

There is no contradiction between evolution and God, as has been said many times. However, there is an evident conflict between the world as it appears today and intelligent design. Namely, the world is not very efficient, some aspects of the world don't work very well, some creatures are poorly suited for their environment, and, most importantly, there is no evidence that any sort of designer exists. The world itself is evidence for, at best, a mediocre designer.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

SecretMethod70

I'm going to be perfectly frank. Creationism *is* fake. At least from a scientific perspective. If students want to ignore the science and believe creationism, they're more than welcome to. But any teacher who says "evolution is the only correct story" (and I take this the way the teacher meant it, as a comparison to various creationism stories) is simply doing their job: teaching.

I believe in a higher power and I believe that this higher power has something to do with all of creation. I don't believe in rejecting what we *know* through science in order to avoid reevaluating how I think of this higher power, and I don't believe it is a teacher's job to facilitate such attitudes.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ubertuber

AquaFox,

Check out these threads, also in politics:

Evolution takes a back seat in U.S. classes

Georgia to outlaw "evoution" in schools

and this in philosophy:

Creationsm vs. Evolutionism in schools

______________________________________


With that out of the way, I'd say that people here have thought that creationism and evolution are not different sides of the same coin - they're different subjects altogether. You wouldn't teach evolution in a religion class, and I think similarly creationism doesn't belong in science classes - even being mentioned. It's just not science.

In the same vein, my compulsive nature can't help but point out that evolution is generally taught, not "preached". And the curriculum of a science class isn't really subject to popular opinion.


This is a pdf of the judge's ruling in the recent Dover, PA schools case. Be aware that it is a 139 page pdf, but it's pretty interesting reading. Basically, the judge tells them that intelligent design is nothing more than repackaged creationism and neither has a place in biology class.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

tecoyah

I see no problem teaching ID/Creation in schools, and then after the half day class on the subject, moving on to Evolutionary theory. After both are taught.....let the Kids decide which is more accurate. To be honest I cant see creation as a threat to evolution.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

AquaFox

right there is pretty much what i think should happen, and it's alot closer to my expereince in highschool.




i think that its okay to teach evolution, but once you start preaching that it's correct and God is wrong, that's where it crosses the line, the teacher might be an athiest, but a good handful of other people are not



and thanks everyone for the input so far

__________________


...AquaFox...

SecretMethod70

Teaching that evolution is undoubtedly the most correct of the proposed explanations is not a rejection of God. It is a rejection of creationism and the idea that God created life through any currently proposed method other than evolution. *That* is indeed absolutely in line with what science has told us. Acting like anything otherwise does a disservice to the education of our children.

The "theory" of evolution (and I think I've made this point in at least one of the thread's ubertuber linked to above) is no more a theory than the "theory of gravity." (And, let me make this point, scientifically speaking, gravity *IS* a theory. So, the whole "evolution is a theory" retort is utter crap.) If a teacher wants to mention, in the 5 or so minutes it would take, that the fact we know evolution to be, far and wide, the best explanation does not mean a higher power played or plays no role in the creation of life, that's fine. But a teacher giving *any* lip service to creationism is, in my frank and not humble opinion, a disservice to the profession and, more importantly, to the children the teacher alleges to be educating.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Hardknock

As long as the right wing controls the government, creation will always be a threat. Their intention all along is to make creationsim the status quo.

ubertuber

Maybe, maybe not... I think that's neither here nor there in this thread though... Although this issue has been politicized, there are people that have genuine reasons for their feelings on it that aren't related to party platforms.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

martinguerre

hehe...i remember my bio teaching not just teaching evolution as the only way, but making pointed remarks about "Thor, God of Thunder" and other obsolete dieties.

it went over like a lead baloon, but the dude had tenure, so there was nothing anyone could do. he also taught the scientific method, and how to think about science in a way that few other of my teachers did. simply, there isn't a way to "teach" creationism in a academic fashion. it's a category mistake about what is or is not a testable hypothesis...combined with some terrible reasoning and outright misinformation about "irreducable complexity." if i had my choice, i'd rather have Mr. Gunderson's lecture on Thor and misplaced attributions of cause over the "fairness" of presenting "both sides" of the argument. Fairness does not mean neutrality to the truth.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Willravel

I've said it before and I'll say it again, religion is important to teach in schools. I would hope that when my daughter is taught about the history of humanity, all of it's glories and all of it's follies, in there will be at least some mention of religion. Not teaching religion to children is like omitting a whole part of human nature. I want my daughter to understand Christianity, Islam, Judism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other religions of the world....that is so long as it's in a history or religion class. Teaching about God in a classroom dedicated to science is the most irresponsible, childish, and entitled thing I've ever heard of. Creationism is to science as Willaim Hung is to music. It's wrong and everyone knows it.

stingc

This is not done for any other concept in high school except for possibly the ones based purely on aesthetics. And there's a good reason for that. Nothing would ever get done otherwise. You could spend the entire course discussing evolution, and you would have still only scratched the surface for why it is accepted.

High school is not (and cannot be) about presenting all relevant arguments for the things taught there. It can at best show that the content of its curriculum is plausible. You are just supposed to accept that the people who spend their lives thinking about biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, history, etc. probably know some basic things about their fields. It is the duty of high school to teach you about their conclusions. The reasoning used to get there is usually very complicated. Even minor subjects could easily require years of dedicated study to truly appreciate.

So most importantly, there is absolutely no argument over evolution from the people who actually are actually qualified to critique it. There is therefore no reason for high school teachers to treat it as if it were controversial.

Bill O'Rights

I think that your verbage here speaks volumes. Evolution is not "preached", it is "taught". Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory.
As I have stated, in numerous preceeding threads, I have absolutely no problem with Creationism being taught in public school. Providing, of course, that it's taught in a comparative religion class.

Link

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

pocon1

Nothing to say

MSD

My anthropology professor covered the different theories in one day. She started with creationism, moved on to two, the names of which I can't remember, and finally natural selection. She explained the pros and cons of each, and in the end the class was entirely satisfied and agreed that the current evolution/natural selection theory is the most correct, even if minor points need refinement and more diverse evidence.

FoolThemAll

That only adds fuel to the fire, though. Better to explain simply why Creationism doesn't count as science and why evolution does. Leave the taunting and the philosophising out of it. Give them no legitimate complaints.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

SirLance

Evolution is the scientific theory that best explains the origin of species. The fact is that species do evolve and change. This has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. The theory is that the mechanism of that change is the process called natural selection.

Right now, natural selection is the best theory for a variety of reasons: it accurately describes what is observed, and accurately predicts what should be observed.

Another point to be made is that you could prove it wrong. "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" can't be proved wrong, because they are not science.

Another salient point is that evolution explains the origin of species, but not the origin of life. That one is anybody's guess right now. I vote for God...

__________________
DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

maximusveritas

It would be great if every teacher in the country could do as good a job as your anthropology professor did. If that were the case, I'd have no problem with allowing creationism to be discussed as tecoyah suggests.
Of course, the problem is that most teachers can't do such a good job. I know I wouldn't trust some random high school teacher in Podunk, Arkansas to do it.

ubertuber

This battle is being fought on several fronts... Above we've mostly talked about the judicial challenges.

This NY Times article is about proposed legislation that would mandate disclaimers about evolution in classrooms. The bill was defeated soundly, but it is an interesting new development nonetheless.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

jwoody

I do (see a problem). Id/Creation should be kept well away from schools and taught only in churches/mosques/them jewish things/etc., unless the school is a privately funded religion based school. In which case, they can teach whatever they like.

The time spent teaching any sort of religious education in schools could be put to much better use, if you were to ask me.

I'd rather see kids being taught useful, practical skills that will serve them well when they eventually join the working population.

__________________
.

astrahl

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0224090021.htm

Evolution is based on science. Creationism being taught in school is fine, if it is in literature class. I see no difference in talking about creationism as I do about talking on the Lord of the Rings or the Scarlet Letter. Just keep it out of science class.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

jwoody

It's fine if your mission is to brainwash the most impressionable members of society into becoming little christians.

__________________
.

BigBen

Am I the only one to point out that God created evolution?

Problem solved.

The whole "Created it in six days, 5000 years ago" is relative, in terms of GOD TIME. What is that, like a couple of minutes for God? Less?

I don't have to prove anything. Evolution is a strong theory. I believe in evolution. I also believe that God created evolution.

Is this reasoning flawed? Is there an inherent contradiction in my blend of the two sides? Is this logically allowed?

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

ubertuber

They can't teach whatever they like (or not whatever they don't like) unless they don't care about accreditation.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

jwoody

From my point of view your reasoning is fatally flawed.

Wow! There are black holes in space.

Yeah, god made them.

There have been millions of big bangs throughout the history of the universe.

Yeah, god did that.

etc, etc.

You can't just change the definition of god to suit the times. If your god is something that is everywhere at all times, it created everything which has ever existed and everything which will ever ever exist, with allowances for random, controlled events.

I give up.

__________________
.

balderdash111

I don't think your reasoning is flawed, in that the two ideas can coexist. Logically, you have a problem because you presuppose the existence of a supernatural creator, then try to fit the evidence to that presupposition, but

I think your approach is how most christians and jews deal with evolution. The problem is that the creationists believe in the literal truth of the Bible - as in the earth is 5000 years old, macroevolution does not take place, etc.

The ID folks are careful not to insist on the biblical story of creation, but rather try to poke holes in evolutionary theory

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

roachboy

i would think it a good idea to actually read darwin in class--if only because, once you do it, you see straight away that the opposition belief in god/theory of evolution is wholly fake.

the problem may well be that darwin and the american protestant evangelical movement have/had different conceptions of god--darwin more a nominalist (a transcendent god that may create things and put them into motion, but who does not intervene in the movement itself--this movement, over the long term, is evolution)---- american protestant conservatives seem to have a very different idea of god, more a dad who lays out everything down to its last detail. in darwin, you have room for autonomy, even at the level of long-term development of bio-divesity: the american evangelical right does not want to allow for any autonomy in history, only a space for choice--belief or its opposite, salvation or damnation. that's it. everything else is preordained. i dont understand how this gets squared wth free will--but this is not my problem.

i mean, it is not as if darwin was himself an atheist--nor does atheism follow from origin of the species or the descent of man--darwin addresses these questions directly in the text.

i do not understand why we should allow the views of far right american protestants to define what a religious person might think about darwin or evolution---because there are many conceptions of god within christianity, there are many ways of thinking how this god might interact with the earth/history etc.---but the far right protestant evangelical community is trying to impose its VERY particular theology on the rest of us in the name of christianity as a whole--when the fact is that their views are not even representative of christianity itself. it appears that these communities have not even reached the 12th century in terms of thinking about the nature of god, the theological problems that would shape this thought, etc.--they are not even at the level of the debate between aquinas and ockham---it is a very shallow form of thought that is being agitated for across the device of "intelligent design"--and a presumptuous one at that, because the far right protestant evangelicals claim that they and they alone know the true nature of god, have sussed out the proper role their god must play in shaping history and/or evolution. all this on the basis of--apparently--not having read darwin on the one hand, and a truly impoverished theology on the other.

so maybe the best way to deal with this non-issue is to present the views,and the texts, and watch as i.d. implodes again and again.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jwoody

Forget all about -ism and and teach some -ology. That's all I'm saying.

This is my favourite book on the subject:

Life on Earth, by David Attenborough.

__________________
.

astrahl

I think you misunderstood my post. You can talk about the bible or any other book like another fictional work, like in english lit
...get it?

winkwink, nudgenudge, saynomore?
Take a breath, you're missing the inherent levity of the situation.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

frogza

It's fine if your mission is to brainwash the most impressionable members of society into becoming little atheists.

Should our governements endeavor to "brainwash" children to believe in any one belief or theory? Critical thinking is what is needed in our society, not fantatical extremes on either side of the religious or political fences. Critical thinking is impossible without conflicting ideas being provided and weighed. Is it the science teachers job to do this, I don't think so. I think that is why we are taught a miriad of subjects all by different teachers.

AngelicVampire

Critical thinking is great, but only if you have two competing theories...

If we had say Evolution (which can be observed, predicted and studied) and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism with proof that flying spaghetti monster currently or did exist and that it had powers beyond that of a normal flying spaghetti monster then we might need to teach both and let the kids decide. However if like gravity there is 1 theory (don't think there is a second plausible one yet) and its pretty reliable or at least reliable enough to represent a good analogy at that level (Transistors are switches for example... ) then that is the only thing we should be teaching as truth, any other wack theories should be that, wack theories possibly mentioned in passing.

Children are easily confused... if you preach to them that gravity is caused by the spaghetti monster's children who bind things together using their special invisible meatball sauce then you will likely get some converts and at best simply a few confused children.

Bill O'Rights

That's...Pastafarianism.
And, after all...why not?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

hannukah harry

not teaching an idea doesn't convert people to anything. if you don't mention god at all, that isn't an endorsement of athiesm just like not talking about capitalism isn't an endorsement of communism.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

zz0011

Evolution and creation as theories of the beginnings of all things are both theories which have to be embraced by faith.

Evolution can not be observed. Microevolution, which can be argued for, is not macroevolution.

Unless they've changed the scientific method's reliance on observation, then it would be far better to present the cases for both theories and teach the children how to think critically.

Why be so afraid of allowing the theofy of [at least] intelligent design be presented? Everywhere we look we find evidence which seems to support ID. And a growing number of scientists are now on the record of being...how did they put it?..."We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

In fact, to maintain --

-- overlooks some of the very problems which recent events have given to evolution, while strengthening the case for creation, ie: Mt. St. Helens.
Just a few thoughts off the cuff in passing.

__________________
10th sig ~> "How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms?" -- Aristotle

hannukah harry

not true. evolution doesn't talk about the beginning of life. it describes how life changed over time from the first microorganism. and since change has been observed in living things, it doesn't require faith.

evolution has been observed. you might want to start at http://www.talkorigins.org and learn a bit about it before you try to state a falsity.

again, not so. there is observation in evolution, none for creationism. one is science, the other is religion. why would ask a 14 year old to try to critically think and compare apples to oranges?

there is no theory of intelligent design. saying "we see problems with evolution and are going to try to poke holes in it to bring creationism back into schools" isn't a theory. it' s a mixed political/religious strategy. yes, i know technically they say that ID is "the theory that life is too complex to have evolved naturally on its own" or soemthing to that effect. but that's a hypothesis at best, with no evidence to back it up.

also, there is no "growing number of scientists are now on the record of being...how did they put it?..."We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”" That's propaganda. I'll show you a list of clergy and a list of scientists named Steve (or some variation of that name) that's longer than your list of skeptical scientists.



sorry, how is mt. st. helens a problem for evolution? pretty much anything you can find that you think makes evolution look less likely, i can find explanations as to why it's not, why those who believe it is are wrong. and anything that does cause a problem for evolution does not mean it supports creationism. they aren't flip sides of the same coin.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

kutulu

At least we made it 33 posts before someone mistankenly refered to Creationism and Intelligent Design as theories. Do some reading, they are NOT theories in any way.
Science require zero faith. It's science. The evidence is there. The research has been performed, duplicated, and done again. Maybe IDers should actually try proving their case as evolution supporters have done. That would make some sense. Too bad all they can do is spout (usually outdated) criticizms of evolution. I love the qualifiers they say, "many scientists have converted to ID." Care to back that up?

The object in your hand may not be an apple but that doesn't mean its an orange.

Pacifier

Because it is no science, if any it is "science for lazy thinkers"
It ignores facts and scientific methodes.
It is just religion no matter how you dress it up.


where?
name an evidence for ID

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

flstf

This analogy is one of the main problems I have with ID. I have no problem with speculating that something may have started the ball rolling (created something out of nothing, if you will), but not in a science class. Even those of us who speculate that there may have been a "big bang" usually do not claim to have any idea as to what was here before that, and before that, etc...

So the ball is rolling and science has some pretty good reasons to believe that things are evolving and adapting to their environment. Most of the ID information I have read tends to claim that there is a designer actively involved in deciding which adaptions occur, which ones are successful and which ones fail. IMHO it is going too far and religious by implication to teach that there may be an active designer deciding evolutionary adaptions.