Should evolution be taught in high school science classes?

Modesto Bee ^ | 10/27/03 | Richard Anderson

[CobaltBlue]

Excellent! In fairness to both of you, I think you both worked on that summary - I believe that Alamo-Girl started it, because I came in around #4 or #5, and didn't see #6 and #7.

When you put it like that, I wonder how anybody could disagree?

It seems to me that it's completely consistent with both science and Christian theology to say, "I believe thus and so, and you believe otherwise."

So here is the $64,000 question. Would it be fair/reasonable/good/worthwhile to teach that same tolerance for other points of view to high school students?

A week or two ago I posted links to a Jewish high school website that talked about different religious beliefs - not just the Jewish views on creation, but short mentions of other religions. I was very impressed by the thought that went into it.

[Salvation]

Are they teaching "creationism" also?

[PatrickHenry]

That was mostly Alamo-Girl's work. I contributed the last two items, but the whole idea was hers.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and for your analyses! Indeed, the summary developed as you say.

Would it be fair/reasonable/good/worthwhile to teach that same tolerance for other points of view to high school students?

I believe that would be a very good idea! It would frame the subject for the students.

Also, on a previous thread you mentioned that a compromise on teaching evolution might be to present the known weaknesses in the theory. I believe that would work a lot better than disclaimers, etc.!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the encouragement!

But all I did was to initiate the question and propose the first three based on Dr. Schroeder's article on the subject.

[trebb]

Odd. I read your definition of science, and then you seem to conclude G-d is somehow testable and creationism is falsifiable? May I ask how we can test if G-d made everything as it exists today?

It's not my definition - it came from the dictionary. What it infers is that the study of something to get all the info you can get from it may be considered science, which is contrary to the quote from the article where the individual said that creationism is not science and used that as a reason why it shouldn't be taught/studied alongside evolution. I do believe God (have yet to figure out who/what this G-d is) made everything and that creationism can be studied. I don't believe it can be "falsified" or disproved, but why is that a requirement for it to be "science"? Science is just the attempt to prove/disprove something.

[stanz]

Should evolution be taught in high school science classes?

It's to biology what pi is to math.

[freedumb2003]

[balrog666]

Good one. Thanks for posting it so I could steal it.

[HankReardon]

If the intelligent designer is eliminated from the "how did all things come to be" discussion, then yes, it would be meant to believe that all things happend by accident and not deliberate intent.

[whattajoke]

Oh, there's more where that came from here

http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html

[Shryke]

I don't believe it can be "falsified" or disproved, but why is that a requirement for it to be "science"? Science is just the attempt to prove/disprove something.

This is erroneous. It is this error which leads to some very bad possibilities - like the abandonment of the scientific method, which is critical to any real scientific progress, and mankind as a whole.

And therein lies the crux behind this "debate": Scientists don't want anything but science taught in science classes. Religious fundamentalists feel that, becuase evolution falls under science, and evolution somehow conflicts with Genesis (it doesn't), that science will push their children away from G-d. Therefore they have developed a non-scientific spin, labeled it a "science" and tried to get it taught in science classes (I.D.). Ofcourse, instead of providing any scientific evidence whatsoever to back their claim, they throw up lies and vitriol concerning evolution. It's funny to watch, actually.

However, I do not want to come across as overly critical. I believe in G-d, and allow that I.D. may be completely true. However, I.D. is not science, never will be, therefore, teach it in church, or at home. Not in science class. Someone needs to pound it into gore's and fdot's heads that science class doesn't turn their children into athiests/pagans.

[whattajoke]

[Evolution's] to biology what pi is to math.

And what pie is to Ted Kennedy.

[Physicist]

If the intelligent designer is eliminated from the "how did all things come to be" discussion, then yes, it would be meant to believe that all things happend by accident and not deliberate intent.

Is the evaporation of a water droplet on a hot day an accident, or a deliberately intended event?

[HankReardon]

Go back further, did the water just come in to existence by accident?

[Ogmios]

The Intelligent Designers existence must be taken on faith, there is no evidence that an intelligent designer exists.

Until there is evidence that shows that an intelligent designer exists, scientifically verifiable evidence, ID will not and can not be considered science.

You have faith that the Intelligent Designer exists, great, have at it, but don't call it scientific, because it's not.

[balrog666]

http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html

That whole site is wickedly funny!

Perhaps dinosaurs were more sophisticated than we thought.

[Physicist]

The pictures are all from the Hugo-award winning Science Made Stupid by Tom Weller.

[HankReardon]

The evidence is all around you. The evidence is you, yourself. There are only 2 choices, that all things accidently came to be or they came to be out of deliberate intent, which requires the intelligent designer. Life is much more complex than anything we create yet we are intended to believe life just happened. Might as well look at a computer or an automobile or a picnic table and believe any of these things could have just happened.

[Held_to_Ransom]

While this claim may be true, it is a religious or philosophical belief because it invokes causes not investigable by science.

This is a foolish concept. All things religious are investigable. In point of fact, things like whether or not the sun went around the earth were once religious dogma, but were investigable by science and hence discovered to be not what they were originally believed to be. The same is true in the big bang theory, though that idea that was the start of our universe is not largely passe for the same reasons. To think that we can not learn more about God through science is only a result of the innate and completely true fear in the heart of an atheist that God might really exist.

Correct. ID is a (IMO) correct recognition of design in the universe, but it is a philosophical idea, not a testable hypothesis. It doesn't belong in a science class. Creationism certainly doesn't.

But then you must through Darwin out of the classroom, as he was a profound creationist who not only believed the God created the universe, but that free will did not exist as a result of the manner in which God created it and existed in it.

On the other hand, neither does alleged historical evolution.

That's one of the biggest mistakes of all, not studying the history of how intellectual fallacies arise and fall.