Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[larkin31]

I teach at a private school. We are non-denominational, non-sectarian, we will not even sing The Twelves Days of Christmas. But I teach Genesis in more than one class and we have lively and interesting discussions about the text. I also look at Native American creation myths and a few others from around the world. It is quite possible for agnostics and atheists and theists to expose students to religious stories of creation and do it in an open and accepting and respectful way (even in a public school). But none of this is modern science, nor could it be. Modern science is about the investigation of empirical phenomena.

 

[Cat_Herder]

“First Cause” is a philosophical term, not a scientific one.

Then find another one that fits the inferred properties of the pre-Bang environment.

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.”

Who says you need empirical data from prior to the Big Bang to know anything about what happened prior to the Big Bang? Do we need empirical data of a primitive ice comet impact to theorize how water came to earth? If so then you need to tell all of the scientists who are positing an extraterrestrial hydrologic origin that they have to revise their theory because their empirical data has long since evaporated.

There is a double standard here.

In a public school, these other offerings cannot promote one religion above others, or the law is violated.

Exactly; so if they promote atheism, the law is violated.

 

[larkin31]

Then find another one that fits the inferred properties of the pre-Bang environment.

You just did. “First Cause” is not a descriptive term for the properties of “the pre-Bang environment.”

Who says you need empirical data from prior to the Big Bang to know anything about what happened prior to the Big Bang? Do we need empirical data of a primitive ice comet impact to theorize how water came to earth?

Yes, we do. If no comet ever had been found to contain water crystals, then the “theory” would just be empty speculation. We study material deposits in comets, in their tails, and in their craters as often as we can. We also study meteorites and their impact sites. All of this is empirical.

If so then you need to tell all of the scientists who are positing an extraterrestrial hydrologic origin that they have to revise their theory because their empirical data has long since evaporated.

See above.

Exactly; so if they promote atheism, the law is violated.

No empirical science promotes atheism, because no empirical science in any way treats the supernatural. You are arguing against a strawman.

Can you name a single empirical science that “promotes atheism”? In all honesty, I cannot think of one, especially not one that would be taught in a public school.

chemistry?
physics?
biology?
anatomy and physiology?
geology?
astronomy?

Which one?

 

[Cat_Herder]

You just did. “First Cause” is not a descriptive term for the properties of “the pre-Bang environment.”
…
If no comet ever had been found to contain water crystals, then the “theory” would just be empty speculation. We study material deposits in comets, in their tails, and in their craters as often as we can. We also study meteorites and their impact sites. All of this is empirical.

And we study spacetime, the CMBR, fractals and other chaotic systems, the acceleration of the Universe’s expansion, etc. All of that is empirical, all of it can be used to draw conclusions about the pre-Bang environment, and all of it indicates that there are pre-temporal constants and phenomena in place.

No empirical science promotes atheism, because no empirical science in any way treats the supernatural. You are arguing against a strawman.

The Big Bang is a natural phenomenon. It must have a natural cause* and science must be able to draw conclusions about the cause. Otherwise there is an admission that science is NOT able to prove the cause of every natural phenomenon.

Can you name a single empirical science that “promotes atheism”? In all honesty, I cannot think of one, especially not one that would be taught in a public school.

chemistry?
physics?
biology?
anatomy and physiology?
geology?
astronomy?

Which one?

No empirical science by itself promotes atheism, however, they can all easily be used to promote atheism by means of selective “instruction.”

• again, this does not mean that the Cause is not also supernatural.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But can’t “selective instruction” be used to promote any evil there is? That is what the devil does—mixes lies with the truth and takes part of the truths of our life and appeals to our good nature often times to manipulate us into evil.

We can’t blame teachers for teaching empirical science just because some jerk can take what he learns and use it for atheism? We could just as well take Christianity and say we can’t teach the words of Jesus because somebody will hear the “turn the other cheek” teaching and take it to mean that we must NEVER fight in wars, defend our families, or fight at all? Or we could teach Jesus’s sayings about if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, if your eye causes you to sin, poke it out, because someone might take it literally.

Teachers cannot always be responsible for how every student or learner takes what they learn and how they apply it in their lives. Teachers deliver information. Students take the information and, along with their values and perceptions they receive largely from home, they use that information. Science cannot be ignored because of atheists out there. We cannot eliminate curriculum because some rogue teachers here and there might selectively teach with it…

No empirical science by itself promotes atheism, however, they can all easily be used to promote atheism by means of selective “instruction.”

 

[larkin31]

No empirical science by itself promotes atheism, however, they can all easily be used to promote atheism by means of selective “instruction.”

So, science does not promote atheism.

But some people do.

Well, no kidding. This is why I know of no teachers, in 25 years of the profession, who have ever done so. I also know of no teachers who promoted their religious views in a science classroom in the same interval. So I really don’t see your point, except that some very few individuals COULD promote their religious beliefs in a classroom. Well, of course they COULD. But it has nothing to do with the nature of the material that they teach. This is NOT about science in ANY WAY. And teachers get reprimanded and/or fired when they do if it is at a public school.

 

[Cat_Herder]

But can’t “selective instruction” be used to promote any evil there is? That is what the devil does—mixes lies with the truth and takes part of the truths of our life and appeals to our good nature often times to manipulate us into evil.

We can’t blame teachers for teaching empirical science just because some jerk can take what he learns and use it for atheism?
…Science cannot be ignored because of atheists out there.

I’m certainly not out to blame teachers or encourage ignorance of science. What I want is for the jerks to knock it off, and also for teachers in general to teach all of the evidence. I’m not asking for anything beyond neutrality.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

It is very easy for teachers to explain this.

If you ask, “Why is that pot of water boiling?” there are at least two kinds of answers. One is that the heat source under the water transferred energy to it until it reached the point at which water is more stable in the gas phase than in the liquid phase, and so the water boiled. The other is that someone felt inclined to have a cup of tea. In science, we look for answers of the first type. This does not imply anything whatsoever about the existence or possibilities of answers of the second type. That is simply a different field of inquiry, one which we do not have the means to get into by use of the scientific method.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m certainly not out to blame teachers or encourage ignorance of science. What I want is for the jerks to knock it off, and also for teachers in general to teach all of the evidence. I’m not asking for anything beyond neutrality.

No matter what the subject, there are ways in which teachers can and to some extent always will insert their own little view of the world into the teaching of it. I don’t know what you do about that, because it can’t be stopped entirely. Fish will teach from a “wet” point of view, birds from an aerial point of view, and there is a degree to which this can’t be helped.

Although giving teachers some rhetorical boundaries is necessary, I think the best answer is to teach students the methods of rhetoric, so they’ll recognize how opinion and feeling can be inserted into a rhetorical argument. If you know the principles of argument, you can watch for the parts of arguments that don’t hold water. Teaching students to recognize how personal bias can creep into a narrative is perhaps a preferable and more realistic solution than the impossible goal of eliminating the personal biases of teachers entirely.

I think these skills are more important in other courses than in science, though, because the means by which arguments are made have more subjective boundaries. That doesn’t mean that science students don’t need to be able to recognize when personal agendas are inserted into scientific discussions! Far from it! Science has always been politicized, and the problem is getting worse, if anything. Having said that, the other disciplines have the same problem.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It is very easy for teachers to explain this.

If you ask, “Why is that pot of water boiling?” there are at least two kinds of answers. One is that the heat source under the water transferred energy to it until it reached the point at which water is more stable in the gas phase than in the liquid phase, and so the water boiled. The other is that someone felt inclined to have a cup of tea. In science, we look for answers of the first type. This does not imply anything whatsoever about the existence or possibilities of answers of the second type. That is simply a different field of inquiry, one which we do not have the means to get into by use of the scientific method.

There is empirical evidence that the cup (Earth) is full of water (life) and that it is sitting on a range (attractors) and the range (attractors) are influencing the (chaotic) process of heating the water (natural selection) so that a certain outcome results: water at 120 degrees (human life).

Is this science?

 

[Cat_Herder]

No matter what the subject, there are ways in which teachers can and to some extent always will insert their own little view of the world into the teaching of it. I don’t know what you do about that, because it can’t be stopped entirely. Fish will teach from a “wet” point of view, birds from an aerial point of view, and there is a degree to which this can’t be helped.

At some point an intervention is necessary. We do not want social studies teachers teaching that communism is a superior form of government to democracy. Likewise we do not want science teachers establising a religion such as atheism.

 

[ChiefWill]

I have read through this entire conversation with the hope of fnding something that would help me to explain to my 7th grade daughters science teacher that evolution is a theory not a fact. My daughter is in the VA school system so it is different from CA and TX. We have the SOL’s (Standards Of Learning). I hve tried to teach my children at home that evolution is certainly a possibility however has not yet been proven with respect to man evolving from apes. I do accept that evolution does happen though. This does not go against our christian faith. The teachers response to this was to have my daughter research and discuss “Annie”. She was not told any more than that. She didn’t know what this was all about. I helped my daughter with her research and gave her three different publications discrediting Annie. The teachers response to this was " Well it’s an SOL so that is what you will learn". I realized that I was about to get confrontational with this teacher and let it go for the time being. I want my daughter to be able to ask questions and provide explinations without being shut down by a teacher. I am not a teacher, I’m a Chief in the Navy. My tactics probably won’t work with teachers in the public school system. I want my children to be taught evolution as a theory not fact. You all seem to have a much better grasp on this than I do. Please help me with how I should handle this situation.

Respectfully
Bill

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Chief,

I’m lost with the “Annie” reference. The only Annie I know what the musical with Daddy Warbucks!

I have read through this entire conversation with the hope of fnding something that would help me to explain to my 7th grade daughters science teacher that evolution is a theory not a fact. My daughter is in the VA school system so it is different from CA and TX. We have the SOL’s (Standards Of Learning). I hve tried to teach my children at home that evolution is certainly a possibility however has not yet been proven with respect to man evolving from apes. I do accept that evolution does happen though. This does not go against our christian faith. The teachers response to this was to have my daughter research and discuss “Annie”. She was not told any more than that. She didn’t know what this was all about. I helped my daughter with her research and gave her three different publications discrediting Annie. The teachers response to this was " Well it’s an SOL so that is what you will learn". I realized that I was about to get confrontational with this teacher and let it go for the time being. I want my daughter to be able to ask questions and provide explinations without being shut down by a teacher. I am not a teacher, I’m a Chief in the Navy. My tactics probably won’t work with teachers in the public school system. I want my children to be taught evolution as a theory not fact. You all seem to have a much better grasp on this than I do. Please help me with how I should handle this situation.

Respectfully
Bill

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I have read through this entire conversation with the hope of fnding something that would help me to explain to my 7th grade daughters science teacher that evolution is a theory not a fact. My daughter is in the VA school system so it is different from CA and TX. We have the SOL’s (Standards Of Learning). I hve tried to teach my children at home that evolution is certainly a possibility however has not yet been proven with respect to man evolving from apes. I do accept that evolution does happen though. This does not go against our christian faith. The teachers response to this was to have my daughter research and discuss “Annie”. She was not told any more than that. She didn’t know what this was all about. I helped my daughter with her research and gave her three different publications discrediting Annie. The teachers response to this was " Well it’s an SOL so that is what you will learn". I realized that I was about to get confrontational with this teacher and let it go for the time being. I want my daughter to be able to ask questions and provide explinations without being shut down by a teacher. I am not a teacher, I’m a Chief in the Navy. My tactics probably won’t work with teachers in the public school system. I want my children to be taught evolution as a theory not fact. You all seem to have a much better grasp on this than I do. Please help me with how I should handle this situation.

Respectfully
Bill

Dear Bill,

like gurneyhalleck, I also wonder who or what Annie is.

Regarding the acceptance of evolution, I noticed that the question is highly politicized in the academic world. In colleges and universities, people will lose jobs or be denied tenure, if they start an honest intellectual-scientific inquiry into the facts that seem to indicate that the theory of evolution may have problems. I don’t know about middle school teachers, but I imagine that even they might face serious problems if they question evolution. So, this teacher might be a “true believer” of evolution, might fear for his/her job safety, or both. The thing that comes to my mind, is when I was a college student in Communist Romania. At the philosophy class, I started to ask some questions probing the theory of dialectic materialism (DM), from my teacher. Somehow I sensed he wasn’t truly into a good intellectually challenging conversation, so I dropped the subject. Some time later I realized, I should have never started that conversation in the first place. DM, Marxism, the genius and virtue of whoever is the leader (in Romania - Nicolae Ceausescu, in North Korea - Kim Jong Il, in Cuba - Fidel Castro) are best left alone. That teacher could have lost his job, could have been invited for an unpleasant conversation with the authorities, etc. Sorry if it sounds cynical to compare the academia in the Western World to Communist dictatorships, but in this particular instance, i.e. the theory of evolution, that comparison is appropriate.

Meanwhile, it is funny to mention that the Catholic Church does give freedom to honest intellectual inquiry, while both the atheists and fundamentalist Christians are entrenched in positions that do not let them freely explore the scientific truth, and accept it without ideological prejudice. Atheists are prejudiced because they want to prove that God doesn’t exist, or at least that the theory of evolution makes the existence of God unnecessary. When Charles Darwin’s book came out, Karl Marx wrote an extatic letter to his friend Friedrich Engels, praising Darwin’s book “for disproving the existence of God”. Which is of course a logical error, because God, who created the universe out of nothing, might have chosen to create a universe in which evolution does occur indeed. The fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, interpret the Book of Genesis to say that God created the universe some 6000 years ago, and thus not only evolution is not true, but the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, the universe is not 13 billion years old, and so on. According to these fundamentalist Christians, the Bible already gave us a scientific account of how and when the universe, the Earth, and life were created, thus there’s no need for any more scientific exploration. Meanwhile, between these two extremes, the Catholic Church avoids the errors of both of them. The CC insists that the Book of Genesis is not a scientific account, it wasn’t meant like that. We are free to investigate the theory of evolution and let it stand or fall on its own scientific merits. And you would be surprised, how many scientists are coming out of the woodworks, questioning and challenging the theory of evolution on a strictly scientific basis. But I’m sure many more are simply afraid to come out and have an honest scientific debate, because they are afraid of being labeled as bigots, passed up at promotions and tenures, and even losing their jobs.

 

[larkin31]

Dear Bill,

like gurneyhalleck, I also wonder who or what Annie is.

Regarding the acceptance of evolution, I noticed that the question is highly politicized in the academic world. In colleges and universities, people will lose jobs or be denied tenure, if they start an honest intellectual-scientific inquiry into the facts that seem to indicate that the theory of evolution may have problems. I don’t know about middle school teachers, but I imagine that even they might face serious problems if they question evolution. So, this teacher might be a “true believer” of evolution, might fear for his/her job safety, or both. The thing that comes to my mind, is when I was a college student in Communist Romania. At the philosophy class, I started to ask some questions probing the theory of dialectic materialism (DM), from my teacher. Somehow I sensed he wasn’t truly into a good intellectually challenging conversation, so I dropped the subject. Some time later I realized, I should have never started that conversation in the first place. DM, Marxism, the genius and virtue of whoever is the leader (in Romania - Nicolae Ceausescu, in North Korea - Kim Jong Il, in Cuba - Fidel Castro) are best left alone. That teacher could have lost his job, could have been invited for an unpleasant conversation with the authorities, etc. Sorry if it sounds cynical to compare the academia in the Western World to Communist dictatorships, but in this particular instance, i.e. the theory of evolution, that comparison is appropriate.

Meanwhile, it is funny to mention that the Catholic Church does give freedom to honest intellectual inquiry, while both the atheists and fundamentalist Christians are entrenched in positions that do not let them freely explore the scientific truth, and accept it without ideological prejudice. Atheists are prejudiced because they want to prove that God doesn’t exist, or at least that the theory of evolution makes the existence of God unnecessary. When Charles Darwin’s book came out, Karl Marx wrote an extatic letter to his friend Friedrich Engels, praising Darwin’s book “for disproving the existence of God”. Which is of course a logical error, because God, who created the universe out of nothing, might have chosen to create a universe in which evolution does occur indeed. The fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, interpret the Book of Genesis to say that God created the universe some 6000 years ago, and thus not only evolution is not true, but the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, the universe is not 13 billion years old, and so on. According to these fundamentalist Christians, the Bible already gave us a scientific account of how and when the universe, the Earth, and life were created, thus there’s no need for any more scientific exploration. Meanwhile, between these two extremes, the Catholic Church avoids the errors of both of them. The CC insists that the Book of Genesis is not a scientific account, it wasn’t meant like that. We are free to investigate the theory of evolution and let it stand or fall on its own scientific merits. And you would be surprised, how many scientists are coming out of the woodworks, questioning and challenging the theory of evolution on a strictly scientific basis. But I’m sure many more are simply afraid to come out and have an honest scientific debate, because they are afraid of being labeled as bigots, passed up at promotions and tenures, and even losing their jobs.

Good points here, only I think that you overstate the scientific community’s unwillingness to acknowledge the unknown portions of evolution. There are many and have always been many and these have always been acknowledged. Even Darwin acknowledged them, and he was primarily discussing natural selection.

If one reads the hard science in chemistry, physics, and genetics, one will see that the conclusions are always limited.

Evolution is a “theory” that more and more is looking like it is a fairly accurate representation of why we have species coming in and out of the fossil record over 100s of millions of years (billions, really). There is, presently, no other competing scientific theory. None. This is what we tell students, and it is true.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Good points here, only I think that you overstate the scientific community’s unwillingness to acknowledge the unknown portions of evolution. There are many and have always been many and these have always been acknowledged. Even Darwin acknowledged them, and he was primarily discussing natural selection.

If one reads the hard science in chemistry, physics, and genetics, one will see that the conclusions are always limited.

Evolution is a “theory” that more and more is looking like it is a fairly accurate representation of why we have species coming in and out of the fossil record over 100s of millions of years (billions, really). There is, presently, no other competing scientific theory. None. This is what we tell students, and it is true.

Larkin31, I’m guilty of posting an answer to ChiefWill without reading the whole thread. After I posted, I started to read the previous pages, and wow, a good discussion! Now I’m off to church, but I look forward to come back and read this thread more closely, because it seems I just might learn from it! I also plan to get into some chemical and genetical details, if you and other posters don’t mind!

 

[freethinker83]

Dear Bill,

Atheists are prejudiced because they want to prove that God doesn’t exist, or at least that the theory of evolution makes the existence of God unnecessary.

Hi Joseph,

I take a slight issue with this comment; you make a generalized assumption about atheists, who as a group are not inclined to believe in any set of ideals.

I do not want to prove God doesn’t exist. In fact, I think this is impossible just as it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything including the invisible cat in the room with me, or the teacup that I assert orbits Jupiter.

It is true that some atheists may want to prove the non-existence of God, but that is certainly not true for many of us. I think most rational atheists agree that non-existence cannot be proven.

As far as evolution making God unnecessary, yes I believe this is true. I do not claim that it means God is an impossibility though.

 

[EasterJoy]

Good points here, only I think that you overstate the scientific community’s unwillingness to acknowledge the unknown portions of evolution. There are many and have always been many and these have always been acknowledged. Even Darwin acknowledged them, and he was primarily discussing natural selection.

If one reads the hard science in chemistry, physics, and genetics, one will see that the conclusions are always limited.

Evolution is a “theory” that more and more is looking like it is a fairly accurate representation of why we have species coming in and out of the fossil record over 100s of millions of years (billions, really). There is, presently, no other competing scientific theory. None. This is what we tell students, and it is true.

Exactly…well, I mean that is exactly what students ought to be taught. It is not always what they are taught. To be fair, not everyone who has this topic on their syllabus understands the distinctions as well as one might hope. As some have implied, there are others with their own metaphysical dog in the fight, as well, including biases against the existence of God that they may not be willing to question, themselves.

There are a few scientists who are a bit reactionary about their defense of evolution. To be fair, they see some of what is being advanced as a “competing” theories, and they just lose it. While the possibility always exists that a better explanation is out there, there aren’t any theories that can remotely compete with current explanations in the arena of scientific discussion. Nevertheless, it is sometimes the case where the defense wanders from saying that evolution is by miles and miles the most plausible explanation (which it is) to saying that it is a fact, period, end of story.

 

[larkin31]

Exactly…well, I mean that is exactly what students ought to be taught. It is not always what they are taught. To be fair, not everyone who has this topic on their syllabus understands the distinctions as well as one might hope. As some have implied, there are others with their own metaphysical dog in the fight, as well, including biases against the existence of God that they may not be willing to question, themselves.

There are a few scientists who are a bit reactionary about their defense of evolution. To be fair, they see some of what is being advanced as a “competing” theories, and they just lose it. While the possibility always exists that a better explanation is out there, there aren’t any theories that can remotely compete with current explanations in the arena of scientific discussion. Nevertheless, it is sometimes the case where the defense wanders from saying that evolution is by miles and miles the most plausible explanation (which it is) to saying that it is a fact, period, end of story.

Yes, thanks. I agree.

 

[TEPO]

My daughters health teacher (the same one who believes in and showed her class the movie The Secret) explained to her 9th grade class last week that there is no heaven or hell. The teacher explained that students can believe whatever they want, but that she knew the real truth.

So I wonder why teaching magic, and the powers of energy is’nt on the table here…? Since it’s already being taught in health classes?