Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[gurneyhalleck1]

As a public school teacher, EasterJoy, I seriously appreciate your attitude!

In California we have awesome history/social studies standards for sixth grade. We teach Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. That is for history. In science we teach evolution as “theory” not as fact. Within the history/social studies framework we discuss the theological and moral components. Kids get a good balance without my personal pontificating and are left to make up their own minds with their brains and their families’ values, etc. We are so lucky to have the standards we have. We even have the pope in our history book and talk about the office of Peter! We have St. Polycarp and the gospels, etc. The writing assessment for our district last year in the third trimester was about the Prodigal Son and we had to read that selection to the kids and have them respond to it. So the kids get plenty of fascinating theology about all religions comparatively in our district and plenty of science, balanced.

Obviously, I think evolution, which is an important and widely-held theory concerning how to explain the range of similarities and differences in modern and ancient life forms, ought to be taught in public schools.

I don’t want a public school teacher giving my kids lessons on theology, thank you very much, unless perhaps it is a descriptive course in comparative religion. I think it highly unlikely that the prevailing majority theological opinions that would be approved by most school boards would be either fully correct or remotely complete, when compared to the theology taught by the Catholic Church. I’d rather they stay off the topic entirely.

 

[kbachler]

I cited the journal Nature and Time Magazine. Clearly you did not bother to investigate before condemning.

LOL. Please be careful of pointing to the lay press as an “authority”. Yes, I have investigated a great deal, in fact. I sometimes teach related topics and have several friends who work at top facilities in the field.

This may be true of thermodynamics because of the oddities of quark-gluon soups, but it isn’t true of causality because, again, time began at the Big Bang.

Please prove that time began at the Big Bang. This is not something you or anyone else knows. However, if it did, this very statement defeats your argument which relies on causality which doesn’t exist prior to Big Bang under your argument because time doesn’t exist prior to Big Bang.

I didn’t say it had to be. All along I have said that the identities and extrascientific properties of the First Cause are not matters for a science class.

Why are you assuming there is a first cause, and that it is first, and that if it exists, it is God?

Everyone agrees there is no time and thus no causality before the Bang.

No, everyone does not agree. But if true, then your entire argument is fallacious.

 

[John_of_Woking]

Definitely both in a science class.

I am undecided on the issue. I have books from both camps…both are plausible theories.

 

[EasterJoy]

In science we teach evolution as “theory” not as fact.

This is a bone of contention that scientists have with the general public: that is, the misconception the general public has about the word “theory.” Most people in the general public think a theory is a hunch, a guess. That is the common meaning of the word. Technically, though, what the general public would call a theory is what the scientific world would call a hypothesis. In science, you don’t get to call something a theory until there is a great body of evidence behind the idea. So while it is appropriate to differentiate between the observed evidence (the facts) and the explanations (theory), it is not appropriate to imply that a scientific theory is just some scientist’s opinion. To be a theory, the opinion has to agree with the facts.

In the case of the theory of evolution, coming up with a completely alternative physical mechanism compatible with known physical laws would be an extraordinary feat. Even coming up with some reason that God would have for putting the particular differences and similarities in DNA, the ("so-called, if you are a creationist) vestigial structures present in many, if not most, life forms.

For instance, why would God give humans an appendix? If we believe God created people via the process of evolution, then it could be explained as a vestige an organ that would have been used to digest cellulose by humans’ herbivorous ancestors. The tailbone makes sense as the vestige of a lost tail, but why would God give us that, otherwise? The muscles in the ear, when humans have ears that don’t move? With the little bit of hair we have on our bodies, what function did God have in mind for goosebumps? Why do we have a gene for an enzyme to make Vitamin C, when humans can’t make Vitamin C because the full complement of enzymes isn’t there?

If creationism is taught in a science classroom as being opposed to evolution, then it would have to have to be able to explain all of the same evidence that evolution can explain, and do it either more completely or more elegantly. So while a science teacher might rightly say that there might be a better theory explaining the known facts than the theory of evolution or the Big Bang or gravity or the structure of the atom, that is a million miles from saying that creationism in its present form could be considered.

It is fine to differentiate between a theory and an observed piece of evidence, but great care must be taken to tell the kids that just as “bias” means something different to a seamstress than it does to a journalist, and “low pressure” has a different meaning to a meterologist than it does to a salesperson, the word “theory” means something far more in a scientific discussion than it does in when the word is used in its common form.

Definitely both in a science class.

I am undecided on the issue. I have books from both camps…both are plausible theories.

For the reasons stated above and many others, I have to disagree. If you have a scientific background, one is forced to conclude that creationism is not remotely as plausible as evolution as an explanation for either the fossil record or the comparative anatomy of existing life forms. Not even close.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We spend a tremendous amount of time differentiating between theory and hypothesis. And you are correct about a body of compelling evidence being important for a theory to be a theory. And I agree with you that creationism lacks the compelling evidence so it should be placed as historical speculation in religious contexts.

Great post. I agree and what you describe is my classroom experience. Thanks!

This is a bone of contention that scientists have with the general public: that is, the misconception the general public has about the word “theory.” Most people in the general public think a theory is a hunch, a guess. That is the common meaning of the word. Technically, though, what the general public would call a theory is what the scientific world would call a hypothesis. In science, you don’t get to call something a theory until there is a great body of evidence behind the idea. So while it is appropriate to differentiate between the observed evidence (the facts) and the explanations (theory), it is not appropriate to imply that a scientific theory is just some scientist’s opinion. To be a theory, the opinion has to agree with the facts.

In the case of the theory of evolution, coming up with a completely alternative physical mechanism compatible with known physical laws would be an extraordinary feat. Even coming up with some reason that God would have for putting the particular differences and similarities in DNA, the ("so-called, if you are a creationist) vestigial structures present in many, if not most, life forms.

For instance, why would God give humans an appendix? If we believe God created people via the process of evolution, then it could be explained as a vestige an organ that would have been used to digest cellulose by humans’ herbivorous ancestors. The tailbone makes sense as the vestige of a lost tail, but why would God give us that, otherwise? The muscles in the ear, when humans have ears that don’t move? With the little bit of hair we have on our bodies, what function did God have in mind for goosebumps? Why do we have a gene for an enzyme to make Vitamin C, when humans can’t make Vitamin C because the full complement of enzymes isn’t there?

If creationism is taught in a science classroom as being opposed to evolution, then it would have to have to be able to explain all of the same evidence that evolution can explain, and do it either more completely or more elegantly. So while a science teacher might rightly say that there might be a better theory explaining the known facts than the theory of evolution or the Big Bang or gravity or the structure of the atom, that is a million miles from saying that creationism in its present form could be considered.

It is fine to differentiate between a theory and an observed piece of evidence, but great care must be taken to tell the kids that just as “bias” means something different to a seamstress than it does to a journalist, and “low pressure” has a different meaning to a meterologist than it does to a salesperson, the word “theory” means something far more in a scientific discussion than it does in when the word is used in its common form.

For the reasons stated above and many others, I have to disagree. If you have a scientific background, one is forced to conclude that creationism is not remotely as plausible as evolution as an explanation for either the fossil record or the comparative anatomy of existing life forms. Not even close.

 

[freethinker83]

We spend a tremendous amount of time differentiating between theory and hypothesis. And you are correct about a body of compelling evidence being important for a theory to be a theory. And I agree with you that creationism lacks the compelling evidence so it should be placed as historical speculation in religious contexts.

Great post. I agree and what you describe is my classroom experience. Thanks!

This makes perfect sense to me. I am willing to throw away everything I know about evolution if a better explanation is found.

I am also going to say that this thread has been a great learning experience for me. It really changed some of my preconceived notions of how Catholics (I know, generlization) feel about science education. I fully expected the general concensus to be teaching evolution and creationism as scientific theories on equal footing. I am also glad that my opinions were not immediately thrown out of the window because of my personal religoius views.

I don’t really have anything more to add other than this; I feel this has been a polite, enriching, informative, and productive thread. I look forward to more positive discussion with all of you in the future. Thank you friends.



PS Gurney- I’m glad to see you have George Costanza quoted in your signature. He is one of my top five favorite fictional characters of all time.

 

[kbachler]

This is a bone of contention that scientists have with the general public: that is, the misconception the general public has about the word “theory.” Most people in the general public think a theory is a hunch, a guess. That is the common meaning of the word. Technically, though, what the general public would call a theory is what the scientific world would call a hypothesis. In science, you don’t get to call something a theory until there is a great body of evidence behind the idea. So while it is appropriate to differentiate between the observed evidence (the facts) and the explanations (theory), it is not appropriate to imply that a scientific theory is just some scientist’s opinion. To be a theory, the opinion has to agree with the facts.

In the case of the theory of evolution, coming up with a completely alternative physical mechanism compatible with known physical laws would be an extraordinary feat. Even coming up with some reason that God would have for putting the particular differences and similarities in DNA, the ("so-called, if you are a creationist) vestigial structures present in many, if not most, life forms.

For instance, why would God give humans an appendix? If we believe God created people via the process of evolution, then it could be explained as a vestige an organ that would have been used to digest cellulose by humans’ herbivorous ancestors. The tailbone makes sense as the vestige of a lost tail, but why would God give us that, otherwise? The muscles in the ear, when humans have ears that don’t move? With the little bit of hair we have on our bodies, what function did God have in mind for goosebumps? Why do we have a gene for an enzyme to make Vitamin C, when humans can’t make Vitamin C because the full complement of enzymes isn’t there?

If creationism is taught in a science classroom as being opposed to evolution, then it would have to have to be able to explain all of the same evidence that evolution can explain, and do it either more completely or more elegantly. So while a science teacher might rightly say that there might be a better theory explaining the known facts than the theory of evolution or the Big Bang or gravity or the structure of the atom, that is a million miles from saying that creationism in its present form could be considered.

It is fine to differentiate between a theory and an observed piece of evidence, but great care must be taken to tell the kids that just as “bias” means something different to a seamstress than it does to a journalist, and “low pressure” has a different meaning to a meterologist than it does to a salesperson, the word “theory” means something far more in a scientific discussion than it does in when the word is used in its common form.

For the reasons stated above and many others, I have to disagree. If you have a scientific background, one is forced to conclude that creationism is not remotely as plausible as evolution as an explanation for either the fossil record or the comparative anatomy of existing life forms. Not even close.

Great post. As a one-off (oversimplified) example to make a point - scientists have a Theory of Gravity, and ONLY a Theory of Gravity. The rest of us would view this as more of a fact.

So a theory of evolution has a lot of evidence behind it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Free,

I’m glad you enjoyed the thread. I’m glad you got something from it. I think if you do ever come to cultivate a faith in Our Lord, the Catholic Church is something to consider. Catholicism leaves open the possibility of evolution and is rather kind in that area. There’s a lot of respect for science.

And as far as your religious views, I think most posters try to be intellectually honest and give folks a fair shake without regard to their religious stance. At least I try to. Faith isn’t easy. Being a Christian isn’t easy. Being Catholic is extremely hard. In fact, I myself have gone back and forth between Anglicanism and Catholicism for several years now. I have real trouble embracing a few Catholic positions that I won’t go into. So I understand that finding one’s way is tough. But I think the Holy Spirit might be working in your life more than you realize and just might have pulled you to this message board not for a Pauline Road to Demascus conversion but maybe an intellectual odyssey that might take you to places you never considered before. We’re all happy you’re here, Free.

George Costanza was a riot, no doubt. I think “King of Queens” was even funnier than Seinfeld but boy I loved George. What a nut. “Art Core…valey” or “Vandaley Industries!” I love Jerry Stiller more than anybody. Between playing Goerge’s dad Frank Costanza and Arthur Spooner on KofQ, you totally cannot go wrong!

God bless you buddy. Hope to see you on here some more!

This makes perfect sense to me. I am willing to throw away everything I know about evolution if a better explanation is found.

I am also going to say that this thread has been a great learning experience for me. It really changed some of my preconceived notions of how Catholics (I know, generlization) feel about science education. I fully expected the general concensus to be teaching evolution and creationism as scientific theories on equal footing. I am also glad that my opinions were not immediately thrown out of the window because of my personal religoius views.

I don’t really have anything more to add other than this; I feel this has been a polite, enriching, informative, and productive thread. I look forward to more positive discussion with all of you in the future. Thank you friends.



PS Gurney- I’m glad to see you have George Costanza quoted in your signature. He is one of my top five favorite fictional characters of all time.

 

[larkin31]

If non-theistic evolution is taught alone, atheism is established.

False. The scientific data and hard sciences (chemistry, paleontology, physics, archeology) behind evolutionary theory make no comment in any way upon whether the supernatural exists. That question is entirely irrelevant to those sciences.

The only solution is to teach theistic evolution (“some other theory”) and use a neutral term like “First Cause” or “Prime Mover” to refer to God.

Not in a science class. And not in a public school if in any way the class promotes one religion above others. The Dover PA court case made this very clear.

 

[larkin31]

Definitely both in a science class.

Creationism is not science, which was fully admitted in the Dover PA trial.

Secondly, this instruction is unlawful in a public school if the supernatural component of the teaching promotes a particular branch of religious faith (it is nearly always promoted exclusively by Christians in this country). One cannot use public money in the instruction of children that promotes one faith or group of faiths above or beyond others.

 

[Cat_Herder]

False. The scientific data and hard sciences (chemistry, paleontology, physics, archeology) behind evolutionary theory make no comment in any way upon whether the supernatural exists. That question is entirely irrelevant to those sciences.

I’m sure you would say that all observable effects have a natural phenonomon as the cause; that is your raison d’etre as an agnostic/atheist. The Big Bang is an observable effect; therefore the Cause of the Big Bang is a natural phenomenon and fair game for science, as you will see at the bottom of this post.

Of course, that does not mean that the First Cause is not also supernatural. And yes, the supernatural aspects should be taught elsewhere.

Not in a science class. And not in a public school if in any way the class promotes one religion above others.

That’s the whole point. Imagine the following exchange:

TEACHER: “Where did humans come from?”
STUDENT: “Other humans.”
TEACHER: “Where did the first humans come from?”
STUDENT: “They were designed by God.”
TEACHER: “No, they evolved from a common ancestor with the ape.”

With the word “no,” the teacher has established a religion, namely atheism, under color of state law and prohibited the free exercise of other religions.

Here is another way it could play out:

TEACHER: “Where did the first humans come from?”
STUDENT: “I don’t know.”
TEACHER: “Humans evolved from a common ancestor with the ape.”
STUDENT: “How could that happen?”
TEACHER: “Through natural selection.”

The teacher has insinuated that natural selection is the sole and only cause of human evolution. But the conversation continues.

STUDENT: “What is natural selection?”
TEACHER: “Over thousands of years the animals with inferior genes were killed off and the ones with better genes continued to develop. So the characteristics that make us human, like opposable thumbs and large frontal lobes, were determined by survival of the fittest.”
STUDENT: “Who or what determined who survived?”
TEACHER: “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

That is honesty. But what if the teacher had responded this way:

STUDENT: “Who or what determined who survived?”
TEACHER: “No one determined that. It was just a process.”

Now the teacher has established atheism again.

So the teacher has to handle the question of God properly to avoid abusing his or her state power; an honest answer like “biology cannot answer that question” is good. But because some disciplines of science (such as mathematics and physics) can, a better answer would be:

STUDENT: “Who or what determined who survived?”
TEACHER: “It appears to be a chaotic process. Chaotic processes appear random but are subject to overarching control by mathematical phenomena called attractors. The attractors brought order to chaos and influenced the results so that we would be the humans that we are.”
STUDENT: “Wow. Where did the attractors come from?”
TEACHER: “We see them in everything from fractal patterns of snowflakes to the formation of distant galaxies. So as far as we know, attractors are constant phenomena that have always existed.”
STUDENT: “You mean there is something that has always existed, even before the Universe?”
TEACHER: “It appears so! Although we can’t directly observe what happened before the Big Bang, we do know that space and time began at the Bang. So whatever existed before the Bang was not subject to the limitations of space and time as we know them.”
STUDENT: “That sounds a lot like God…”
TEACHER: “Well, that’s outside of my competence.”

So all I’m asking is for some honesty here. If you aren’t willing to answer the question of what caused the Big Bang honestly, you shouldn’t be teaching science.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you’re imagining a lot in a public education setting. I teach in it and have taught 13 years. I’ve seen A LOT of classrooms, known a lot of teachers, and have had hundreds of students and never have I seen the “script” you have here go that way.

Teachers don’t preach at kids or even answer such questions. We present, as I said earlier, evolution as a theory. In fact, we don’t even use the term “evolution.” We talk about “early man” and we talk totally in terms of theories. We discuss fossil finds, artifacts, commonalities with different early skeletons, radiocarbon dating, and the evidence for things like Pangaea. We talk about Alfred Wegner and the theory of Pangaea and the very good evidence to support the theory. But we leave it at that—theory. We don’t have a scripted perfect answer for kids like those you set out here, quite frankly. Teachers don’t know it all and we don’t pretend to. And with history, it’s often the same thing. If a kid asks me, “How did Alexander the Great die?” My response? “Some historians theorize he died of Malaria in India after his last campaigns there with his men in the jungles. Some people believe he was poisoned by one of his men because of his becoming a Persiaphile and losing some of his Greek roots. Some people think former Persian loyalists killed him. Some people think he got an infection. We’re not sure.” Now could a teacher unilaterally just take advantage of the kid’s ignorance and say “he was poisoned!” and leave it at that? Sure. But that person would be a lousy teacher IMO.

A good teacher is honest about theories, that history and science are often imprecise, and that intellectual honesty without religious OR scientific biases that are not proven is unprofessional.

No teacher I’ve ever met and certainly from a personal experience I have never seen atheism taught explicitely or implicitly. And it would surprise some of the anti-public ed. crowd that most teachers I know are believers! I teach with a LOT of Catholics and Protestants who are very, very active in their churches and faith life. I’ve taught in five different schools and only met one atheist?

I’m sure you would say that all observable effects have a natural phenonomon as the cause; that is your raison d’etre as an agnostic/atheist. The Big Bang is an observable effect; therefore the Cause of the Big Bang is a natural phenomenon and fair game for science, as you will see at the bottom of this post.

Of course, that does not mean that the First Cause is not also supernatural. And yes, the supernatural aspects should be taught elsewhere.

That’s the whole point. Imagine the following exchange:

TEACHER: “Where did humans come from?”
STUDENT: “Other humans.”
TEACHER: “Where did the first humans come from?”
STUDENT: “They were designed by God.”
TEACHER: “No, they evolved from a common ancestor with the ape.”

With the word “no,” the teacher has established a religion, namely atheism, under color of state law and prohibited the free exercise of other religions.

Here is another way it could play out:

TEACHER: “Where did the first humans come from?”
STUDENT: “I don’t know.”
TEACHER: “Humans evolved from a common ancestor with the ape.”
STUDENT: “How could that happen?”
TEACHER: “Through natural selection.”

The teacher has insinuated that natural selection is the sole and only cause of human evolution. But the conversation continues.

STUDENT: “What is natural selection?”
TEACHER: “Over thousands of years the animals with inferior genes were killed off and the ones with better genes continued to develop. So the characteristics that make us human, like opposable thumbs and large frontal lobes, were determined by survival of the fittest.”
STUDENT: “Who or what determined who survived?”
TEACHER: “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

That is honesty. But what if the teacher had responded this way:

STUDENT: “Who or what determined who survived?”
TEACHER: “No one determined that. It was just a process.”

Now the teacher has established atheism again.

So the teacher has to handle the question of God properly to avoid abusing his or her state power; an honest answer like “biology cannot answer that question” is good. But because some disciplines of science (such as mathematics and physics) can, a better answer would be:

STUDENT: “Who or what determined who survived?”
TEACHER: “It appears to be a chaotic process. Chaotic processes appear random but are subject to overarching control by mathematical phenomena called attractors. The attractors brought order to chaos and influenced the results so that we would be the humans that we are.”
STUDENT: “Wow. Where did the attractors come from?”
TEACHER: “We see them in everything from fractal patterns of snowflakes to the formation of distant galaxies. So as far as we know, attractors are constant phenomena that have always existed.”
STUDENT: “You mean there is something that has always existed, even before the Universe?”
TEACHER: “It appears so! Although we can’t directly observe what happened before the Big Bang, we do know that space and time began at the Bang. So whatever existed before the Bang was not subject to the limitations of space and time as we know them.”
STUDENT: “That sounds a lot like God…”
TEACHER: “Well, that’s outside of my competence.”

So all I’m asking is for some honesty here. If you aren’t willing to answer the question of what caused the Big Bang honestly, you shouldn’t be teaching science.

 

[Farsight001]

I voted for the third, but what I really wanted was not quite there. I don’t mind creationism being taught in religion classes, but it should be taught as “Some people believe creationism”, not “creationism is how the universe really came to be”.

Of course, that does not mean that the First Cause is not also supernatural. And yes, the supernatural aspects should be taught elsewhere.

But they can’t be taught in science. Science is the study of only the natural world. The process for studying things in science is based around this fact. Scientists can speculate about the influence of the supernatural, but it, by definition, can’t be science anymore. It’s be like historians talking about the future. Once they delve into the future, you can’t call it history anymore because its, well…the future. It’s the same with science - once you start talking about the supernatural, it is no longer the “study of the natural world”.

With the word “no,” the teacher has established a religion, namely atheism, under color of state law and prohibited the free exercise of other religions.

In what way has the teacher established atheism? I just don’t see how you can make this leap, which is, frankly, huge - like superman-leaping-tall-buildings-in-a-single-bound huge. Why does the idea that “God unmeasurably guided evolution from single celled organisms all the way to us” suddenly become impossible?

The teacher has insinuated that natural selection is the sole and only cause of human evolution. But the conversation continues.

No they haven’t. Being that it is science class and the teacher is supposed to give science based answers, the teacher has only insinuated that natural selection is the sole and only scientific cause of human evolution. Other causes are not discounted. They are just not within the scope of science.

Now the teacher has established atheism again.

Again, the science teacher should be answering scientifically, and that is what the teacher has done. There is no, again, scientific explanation other than what he said. There are a multitude of non-scientific explanations, but they are, of course, not within the scope of science and so merit no mention in a science class.

So all I’m asking is for some honesty here. If you aren’t willing to answer the question of what caused the Big Bang honestly, you shouldn’t be teaching science.

I would have to disagree. If you’re going to answer the question at all when science doesn’t yet have an explanation for what caused it, then you are deceiving your students by suggesting that (just as an example) “God did it” is somehow a scientific explanation. It may be right, but it is not scientific, and so a science teacher should not be teaching it. In fact, many science teachers actually take an oath that would prevent them from teaching it - which is basically to swear not to knowingly teach something unscientific to their students.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I think you’re imagining a lot in a public education setting. I teach in it and have taught 13 years. I’ve seen A LOT of classrooms, known a lot of teachers, and have had hundreds of students and never have I seen the “script” you have here go that way.

Not if by “public education” you include college.

Teachers don’t preach at kids or even answer such questions.

In elementary, middle and high school, students are generally not this inquisitive. I wish they were. (And in college they’re mostly asleep.)

We present, as I said earlier, evolution as a theory. In fact, we don’t even use the term “evolution.”

Really?

quote=TEKS Science concepts. The student knows **evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. **The student is expected to:

(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;

(B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;

(C) analyze and evaluate how **natural selection **produces change in populations, not individuals;

(D) analyze and evaluate how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential of a population to produce more offspring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success;

(E) analyze and evaluate the relationship of **natural selection to adaptation and to the development of diversity **in and among species;

(F) analyze and evaluate the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination; and

(G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.
[/quote]

3. Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know both genetic variation and environmental factors are causes of evolution and diversity of organisms.
b. Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.
c. Students know how independent lines of evidence from geology, fossils, and comparative anatomy provide the bases for the theory of evolution.
d. Students know how to construct a simple branching diagram to classify living groups of organisms by shared derived characteristics and how to expand the diagram to include fossil organisms.
e. Students know that extinction of a species occurs when the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics of a species are insufficient for its survival.

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and the California Content Standards are the basis for the various textbooks used in their public schools. Because Texas and California are such prolific textbook purchasers, most other states capitulate to the curriculum of either Texas or California so as to be able to buy those states’ cheaper books. And evolution is in there, so I don’t know where and when you were or are teaching, but you’re either supposed to be teaching evolution and aren’t or else are blessed to not have someone forcing you to do it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can’t speak for Texas educators, only those here in California as I’m familiar with our system and not that of the Lone Star State.

As for kids not being that inquisitive, oh goodness, YES THEY ARE! Some days I wish they’d tone down their inquisitiveness! When I encounter a “who created the universe?” question, my reply is, “you need to talk that over with your parents and it’s up to your household to come to terms with your religious views on these kinds of things. I’m not here to answer questions that metaphysical and unanswerable!”

In college, you’re correct that some professors are loons of all stripes. And some are quite good. As with anything, Cat, it’s a mixed bag.

God bless you

Not if by “public education” you include college.

In elementary, middle and high school, students are generally not this inquisitive. I wish they were. (And in college they’re mostly asleep.)

Really?

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are the curriculum standards and so are the basis for the various textbooks used in public schools. Because Texas is such a prolific textbook purchaser, most other states capitulate to the curriculum of either Texas or California so as to be able to buy those states’ cheaper books. And evolution is in there, so I don’t know where and when you were or are teaching, but you’re either supposed to be teaching evolution and aren’t or else are blessed to not have someone forcing you to do it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I can’t speak for Texas educators, only those here in California as I’m familiar with our system and not that of the Lone Star State.

I noted that and edited accordingly

As for kids not being that inquisitive, oh goodness, YES THEY ARE! Some days I wish they’d tone down their inquisitiveness! When I encounter a “who created the universe?” question, my reply is, “you need to talk that over with your parents and it’s up to your household to come to terms with your religious views on these kinds of things. I’m not here to answer questions that metaphysical and unanswerable!”

You’re blessed to have students who are engaged! I like the metaphysical part but not the unanswerable one.

In college, you’re correct that some professors are loons of all stripes. And some are quite good. As with anything, Cat, it’s a mixed bag.

Indeed, but when you toss in a hostile culture you have a recipe for, well, 21st Century America. We have a lot of work to do.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

“unanswerable” utilizing science and verifiable data, Cat. You know my faith is Christian and sincere. But as a teacher, I cannot influence their religion when we’re studying science. And with history I really lay it on when we teach Christianity. Our textbook goes into great detail about the life of Christ, the apostles, the pope (yes, the pope!!), martyrs like Polycarp, it lists the Beatitudes (!!), mentions parables (two full pages on the parable of the Prodigal Son!), you name it. We also study the Old Testament in great, great depth. My kids tell me that I teach them fifty times more than their churches did or their catechism and bible studies! My evangelical kids and catholic kids tell me that. My kids often start bringing their bibles to school and take up an interest in religion. And yet, I don’t preach “this is the truth!” I expose them to it, they know I am a Catholic, I teach it sincerely and make it interesting and exciting, and they become interested that way. I also teach Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. as per the standards and I’m fair to all.

And in all my years of sixth grade education, not one of my kids converted to Buddhism or Hinduism so I think the Christianity section speaks for itself and things are going just fine!

I noted that and edited accordingly

You’re blessed to have students who are engaged! I like the metaphysical part but not the unanswerable one.

Indeed, but when you toss in a hostile culture you have a recipe for, well, 21st Century America. We have a lot of work to do.

 

[Cat_Herder]

“unanswerable” utilizing science and verifiable data, Cat.

That’s better.

You know my faith is Christian and sincere. But as a teacher, I cannot influence their religion when we’re studying science.

The physics teacher down the hall is supposed to talk about the Big Bang. And the preliminary parts of the CA standards define science “an organized body of knowledge and a method of proceeding to an extension of this knowledge by hypothesis and experiment.” So, again, I do think the First Cause is fair game to be discussed in the public schools so long as the supernatural questions are deferred.

And with history I really lay it on when we teach Christianity. Our textbook goes into great detail about the life of Christ, the apostles, the pope (yes, the pope!!), martyrs like Polycarp, it lists the Beatitudes (!!), mentions parables (two full pages on the parable of the Prodigal Son!), you name it. We also study the Old Testament in great, great depth. My kids tell me that I teach them fifty times more than their churches did or their catechism and bible studies! My evangelical kids and catholic kids tell me that. My kids often start bringing their bibles to school and take up an interest in religion. And yet, I don’t preach “this is the truth!” I expose them to it, they know I am a Catholic, I teach it sincerely and make it interesting and exciting, and they become interested that way. I also teach Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. as per the standards and I’m fair to all.

:clapping:

 

[larkin31]

I think you’re imagining a lot in a public education setting. I teach in it and have taught 13 years. I’ve seen A LOT of classrooms, known a lot of teachers, and have had hundreds of students and never have I seen the “script” you have here go that way.

Teachers don’t preach at kids or even answer such questions. We present, as I said earlier, evolution as a theory. In fact, we don’t even use the term “evolution.” We talk about “early man” and we talk totally in terms of theories. We discuss fossil finds, artifacts, commonalities with different early skeletons, radiocarbon dating, and the evidence for things like Pangaea. We talk about Alfred Wegner and the theory of Pangaea and the very good evidence to support the theory. But we leave it at that—theory. We don’t have a scripted perfect answer for kids like those you set out here, quite frankly. Teachers don’t know it all and we don’t pretend to. And with history, it’s often the same thing. If a kid asks me, “How did Alexander the Great die?” My response? “Some historians theorize he died of Malaria in India after his last campaigns there with his men in the jungles. Some people believe he was poisoned by one of his men because of his becoming a Persiaphile and losing some of his Greek roots. Some people think former Persian loyalists killed him. Some people think he got an infection. We’re not sure.” Now could a teacher unilaterally just take advantage of the kid’s ignorance and say “he was poisoned!” and leave it at that? Sure. But that person would be a lousy teacher IMO.

A good teacher is honest about theories, that history and science are often imprecise, and that intellectual honesty without religious OR scientific biases that are not proven is unprofessional.

No teacher I’ve ever met and certainly from a personal experience I have never seen atheism taught explicitely or implicitly. And it would surprise some of the anti-public ed. crowd that most teachers I know are believers! I teach with a LOT of Catholics and Protestants who are very, very active in their churches and faith life. I’ve taught in five different schools and only met one atheist?

Thanks for posting this. The same is true in my school and the four that I have worked in. I have been teaching for 25 years.

 

[larkin31]

That’s better.

The physics teacher down the hall is supposed to talk about the Big Bang. And the preliminary parts of the CA standards define science “an organized body of knowledge and a method of proceeding to an extension of this knowledge by hypothesis and experiment.” So, again, I do think the First Cause is fair game to be discussed in the public schools so long as the supernatural questions are deferred.

“First Cause” is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. When students ask, “What came before the Big Bang?” (an empirical question), we answer in science class, “We don’t know because there is no empirical data from prior to this point and the empirical models can’t be worked backward prior to this point. Scientists have offered a few tentative theories, and you can look these up if you would like.” In a religion class or a cultural studies class or a philosophy class, a teacher might offer a different answer. In a public school, these other offerings cannot promote one religion above others, or the law is violated.