Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[gurneyhalleck1]

It may be taught that way to your daughters, which I’m sorry to hear, but nothing of the sort is taught in my classroom or most that I know. Sorry you had a bad experience TEPO

gurney

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?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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.

Freethinker83, your criticism is well taken. I didn’t intend to say that all atheists and agnostics are prejudiced in this way, only that some are. There’s a particular camp that’s prejudiced, and constantly uses concepts such as “there’s evolution” and “there’s no God” in the same sentence. One prominent representative of this camp is Richard Dawkins, who is constantly busy not only getting people to admit that the theory of evolution is true, but also that God doesn’t exist. And, most annoyingly to me, he mixes these two subjects in such a way to suggest that the theory of evolution is a “proof” against God. In my opinion, he is turning the theory of evolution into some religion competing with Judeo-Christian religious beliefs that God created the world including life forms in it. The reason he annoys me is that, IMO, his thinking is too simplistic. But he by no means is representative of all atheists and agnostics, and I apologize for accidentally equating the stance of Dawkins and his camp with all atheists.

Another famous non-Christian who, in the opinions of many, is a good example for someone skeptical of the theory of evolution, is Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winner with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins, for the discovery of the molecular structure of nucleic acids). Crick described himself as an agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. So, I use his example as an agnostic/atheist who did have serious doubts about the theory of evolution, as a contrast to Dawkins and similar scientists. Crick was so puzzled by the elaborate design of the nucleid acids and the genetic code, and the complexity of protein synthesis, and so pessimistical about the mathematical chances of this complex life structure arising on planet Earth, that he came up with a hypothesis named “directed panspermia”. His hypothesis states that life may have arisen somewhere else in the vastness of universe, and may have reached Earth by travelling the intergalactic/interstellar space from that point. He wrote a book on “directed panspermia” and I also saw an interview with him, addressing this hypothesis. At least no one could accuse Francis Crick, an outspoken anti-Christian, of having a hidden creationist agenda when he doubted the theory of life arising spontaneously on planet Earth.

 

[kbachler]

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

You misunderstand the words “theory” and “fact” when used in a scientific context.

Science has a Theory of Motion (would you deny things move?) and Theory of Gravity (would you deny things fall?) and a Theory of Evolution.

Science has a very rigorous definition of proof. Generally, NOTHING is ever proved scientifically. I cannot, for example, prove that the sun will rise for my home town of Chicago tomorrow. I can demonstrate it is highly likely - but I cannot prove it in the sense of removing all doubt. (Not just reasonable doubt - ALL doubt.)

Scientific Theories are proven within a context of reasonable doubt. That isn’t to say a theory is complete. A better, more complete, competing theory may come along and be proven to the same standard. If so, the better theory will be accepted.

The Theory of Evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a HEAVY preponderance of information supporting it. In the books that “disprove” it, there are often misunderstood or outdated facts/assumptions quoted, so that the arguments are really straw man arguments.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that elminates God for the equation. The Theory does not REQUIRE God to be sufficient to explain what happened. That doesn’t mean that one cannot believe in God and also believe in evolution. In fact, there are many things in the Biblical story of creation that are excellent allegories for evolution (and the scientific theory of creation) especially when thinking about teaching creation to an ancient community that basically had no science.

If you hope to find something to explain that evolution is a theory, not a fact, then you are not searching for the truth - you are searching for something to make you feel better. An open mind would ask “Does evoluton explain how life and species arose?” The answer is yes. Does that mean its perfect? No, it isn’t, but it is far better than any alternative. Does that mean that you can say “And I believe that God used evolution as his tool, and gave us a wonderful allegory in His story of creation about how He did so?” Yes, you can - but a belief like that, with out TESTABLE PROOF is not science - its a belief that belongs in religion class.

I hope this commentary helps you.

 

[larkin31]

You misunderstand the words “theory” and “fact” when used in a scientific context.

Science has a Theory of Motion (would you deny things move?) and Theory of Gravity (would you deny things fall?) and a Theory of Evolution.

Science has a very rigorous definition of proof. Generally, NOTHING is ever proved scientifically. I cannot, for example, prove that the sun will rise for my home town of Chicago tomorrow. I can demonstrate it is highly likely - but I cannot prove it in the sense of removing all doubt. (Not just reasonable doubt - ALL doubt.)

Scientific Theories are proven within a context of reasonable doubt. That isn’t to say a theory is complete. A better, more complete, competing theory may come along and be proven to the same standard. If so, the better theory will be accepted.

The Theory of Evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a HEAVY preponderance of information supporting it. In the books that “disprove” it, there are often misunderstood or outdated facts/assumptions quoted, so that the arguments are really straw man arguments.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that elminates God for the equation. The Theory does not REQUIRE God to be sufficient to explain what happened. That doesn’t mean that one cannot believe in God and also believe in evolution. In fact, there are many things in the Biblical story of creation that are excellent allegories for evolution (and the scientific theory of creation) especially when thinking about teaching creation to an ancient community that basically had no science.

If you hope to find something to explain that evolution is a theory, not a fact, then you are not searching for the truth - you are searching for something to make you feel better. An open mind would ask “Does evoluton explain how life and species arose?” The answer is yes. Does that mean its perfect? No, it isn’t, but it is far better than any alternative. Does that mean that you can say “And I believe that God used evolution as his tool, and gave us a wonderful allegory in His story of creation about how He did so?” Yes, you can - but a belief like that, with out TESTABLE PROOF is not science - its a belief that belongs in religion class.

I hope this commentary helps you.

This is a very reasonable response.

 

[StAnastasia]

What I want is for .teachers in general to teach all of the evidence. I’m not asking for anything beyond neutrality.

They do already.

 

[larkin31]

They do already.

Indeed, they do.

 

[Cat_Herder]

They do already.

I have never seen a public school teacher or a college biology professor proffer a cause for evolution beyond random natural selection alone.

That isn’t neutrality.

 

[larkin31]

I have never seen a public school teacher or a college biology professor proffer a cause for evolution beyond random natural selection alone.

That isn’t neutrality.

Science is an empirical study. There is no empirical evidence for anything else. There is, presently, no competing empirical theory. What else do you expect?

 

[grannymh]

What do you think should be taught in public schools regarding the origin of life: creationism? evolution? a combination? neither? something else? What class should these things be taught in?

As you would guess I fully support the teaching of evolution in science classes. I am not against creationism being taught in a public school, I personally don’t believe a science class is the appropriate place because it is not science. I have no problem with a required “world religions” class that goes through the major world religions and explains their beliefs and viewpoints.

Also, what do you think of other “alternate theories” such as aliens planting us here being taught in school?

Remember the poll is anonymous!

As with other posts of mine I am simply trying to learn different viewpoints. Peace.

Modern evolutionary theory is too broad a topic. For example, the origin of life, abiogenesis, can be considered separately from evolution. This is because evolutionary theory is considered an explanation for the diversity of species. Certain principles of evolutionary theory have been adapted by other disciplines such as anthropology and medical research. Evolutionary research focuses on relationships between species and how species split apart from each other which is different from the original ideas pushed by the media. Understanding adaptation and natural selection relating to operations of the cell, etc., is used to formulate drugs to combat disease. The search for our ancestors helps us to understand who we are today and why we are so different in kind from other vertebrates. In my opinion, the history of evolution reflects the technology of science and can serve as an example.

What is very difficult about teaching evolution, is that it comes with a bias concerning human nature and its spiritual identity. In my opinion, creationism or Intelligent Design should not be offered as the antidote. Personally, I consider the Catholic approach to the first three chapters of Genesis as the more complete one as far as understanding what evolution can and cannot contribute to general knowledge of the human person. I would not deal with Noah and so on because then it becomes a fundamentalist issue which is not part of science.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Science is an empirical study. There is no empirical evidence for anything else. There is, presently, no competing empirical theory. What else do you expect?

Chaos theory, attractors, and the anthropic principle are not competing theories. They are, however, empirical theories which means they are science by your definition and should be taught.

 

[larkin31]

Chaos theory, attractors, and the anthropic principle are not competing theories. They are, however, empirical theories which means they are science by your definition and should be taught.

what, in high school general biology? I never claimed that ALL scientific theories should be taught.

I am a high school teacher, and we discuss this in our meetings occasionally. Evolutionary theory is accepted as the only paradigm at this point. It gets about one-paragraph mention in a year-long biology class. If you mean to say that it should not even be accepted as the general explanation for the comings and goings of fossil species over billions of years, then you will have to take this up with the 100s of thousands of experts in their fields–and offer your theory that does not come under the heading of “evolution” (natural selection and genetic change over time).

 

[larkin31]

Modern evolutionary theory is too broad a topic. For example, the origin of life, abiogenesis, can be considered separately from evolution. …

I agree, but we can’t discuss this here…

 

[kbachler]

All this said - if a teacher happened to indicate that the Theory of Evolution disproves the existence of God, then they would be crossing the line BOTH in terms of what they shouldbe teaching in a science class, AND in terms of what the Theory actually scientifically proves. It would be reasonable for a teacher to explain (probably at the beginning of the discussion of the Theory) that the Theory does not prove or disprove God, and in fact the existence of God (at least at this point) is not even a reasonable topic for a science class BECAUSE God can’t be proven or disproven scientifically (at least at this point).

A good book to read to understand what it means to scientifically prove somthing is the classic Personal Knowledge by Polyani.

 

[kbachler]

I have never seen a public school teacher or a college biology professor proffer a cause for evolution beyond random natural selection alone.

That isn’t neutrality.

Yes, it is, IN SCIENCE class, because there is no provable cause beyond natural selection alone.

 

[kbachler]

Chaos theory, attractors, and the anthropic principle are not competing theories. They are, however, empirical theories which means they are science by your definition and should be taught.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what chaos (a branch of mathematics) strange attractors (another area of mathematics) and the anthropic principle (more of a cosmology argument than anything) has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what chaos (a branch of mathematics) strange attractors (another area of mathematics) and the anthropic principle (more of a cosmology argument than anything) has to do with the topic at hand.

Chaos theory explains how emergence happens. Emergence is the formation of a complex system (humans) out of many simple interactions (natural selection). Hence natural selection cannot be explained without reference to emergence, which cannot be explained without reference to chaos. Order emerges from chaos due to attractors and attractors are evidence of an eternal superstructure to the Universe, as they are constants found throughout nature, space and time (e.g., fractals).

Emergence of life from a chaotic system is, of course, directly opposed to purely random random natural selection; there’s a lot more evidence for it; and it also reconciles natural selection with intelligent design—we all know Who designed the superstructure.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This thread has reached its expiration date when we’re moving on to fractals

Chaos theory explains how emergence happens. Emergence is the formation of a complex system (humans) out of many simple interactions (natural selection). Hence natural selection cannot be explained without reference to emergence, which cannot be explained without reference to chaos. Order emerges from chaos due to attractors and attractors are evidence of an eternal superstructure to the Universe, as they are constants found throughout nature, space and time (e.g., fractals).

Emergence of life from a chaotic system is, of course, directly opposed to purely random random natural selection; there’s a lot more evidence for it; and it also reconciles natural selection with intelligent design—we all know Who designed the superstructure.

 

[EasterJoy]

This thread has reached its expiration date when we’re moving on to fractals

Oh, c’mon. You’re asking for the check before we got the dessert menu! Besides, a long-standing thread is the reward for long-standing civility…

I don’t think you have to “teach” fractals in order for there to be great value in cracking the door open and saying, “There are things beyond the scope of this course that will completely blow your mind!..And I mean that is a good thing!” A biology course that can only touch on the bare cultural basics of biology that you have to have to even consider voting ought to leave a person hungry for more. After all, the only way a high school graduate who does not go to college is going to be an intelligent voter is if they have some thirst for life-long learning instilled in them. Otherwise, we’re toast. The world of science and information is simply moving too fast.

 

[kbachler]

Chaos theory explains how emergence happens. Emergence is the formation of a complex system (humans) out of many simple interactions (natural selection). Hence natural selection cannot be explained without reference to emergence, which cannot be explained without reference to chaos. Order emerges from chaos due to attractors and attractors are evidence of an eternal superstructure to the Universe, as they are constants found throughout nature, space and time (e.g., fractals).

Emergence of life from a chaotic system is, of course, directly opposed to purely random random natural selection; there’s a lot more evidence for it; and it also reconciles natural selection with intelligent design—we all know Who designed the superstructure.

I’m sorry, chaos theory does not explain how emergence happens. It may be possible that one sort of emergence could be based on chaos theory, but certainly chaos theory is not a requirement for emergence. Your understanding of the theory here is confused and poor.

Strange attractors also are not necessary even if chaos is involved; the system can simply resolve to the initial deterministic system with implied initial conditions added by the chaotic behavior.

Consequently the evidence of superstructure which you think is implied, is not implied by this, if at all.

It is entirely possible that life is simply built into the universe, in that organic molecules appear to be naturally formed. There’s no reason to assume that chaos in involved in that mix.

As I noted, those branches of mathematics are not related to the discussion at hand. See the subject line.

 

[PbloPicasso]

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?

For a teacher to cross the line like this sets them up to be fired. It’s the law. Now to pursue it. Contact your principal and scream bloody murder.