Evolution/ID/Creationism in the Classroom

[RickD]

Wait, which theory is supposed to do what?

I think Gman meant, that each is supposed to be presented, so one can make an informed decision.

[Gman]

Wait, which theory is supposed to do what?

Allow you to think..

Shalom

[Proinsias]

I'd also like to point out that in the biology course I just finished at the University (in a heavily liberal state, mind you) we did have to learn quite a bit about ID. Was it unbiased? Of course not. All the students in the class are majoring in biological sciences, and the profs were biology professors. But I will say that we had to learn all the prevailing arguments for ID, and I have rarely heard an argument from anyone pushing ID that I did not learn in that class. So to be honest, while we learned ID as a clear many steps behind evolution, we did learn ID pretty much inside and out. The point, obviously, was to take evolution and ID, stack them next to each other, and easily see that the arguments both ways weigh heavily in favor of evolution.

I wonder how common this sort of approach is, and if it's something largely confined to the US. In my experience of biology at university ID/creationism was simply ignored aside from a few occasions when a lecturer would make an attempt at humour.

[zoegirl]

That's pretty rare...most Universities wouldn't bring up ID unless it was to point out the flaws. Also went through undergrad and grad bio programs.

[Ivellious]

Well, I guess just one more reason my school rocks lol...I'll admit some of the profs individually are a little critical of ID beyond just the scientific aspects of it, but overall I think the University is respectful and does a good job on that level. Again, we absolutely learn evolution as the standard and the basis of biology, but ID was at least not repeatedly bashed or just brought up in class to knock down.

[Canuckster1127]

Going back to the original post.

Do I believe evolution should be taught in schools? Yes. It's not "just a theory" as many Christians try to state. It's solid science of course.

Should ID/creationism be taught alongside it? I'm a Christian and an old earth creationist and I know that my position is not popular with other Christians, but I say no. Not because it's not something that shouldn't be addressed, but it's not "science". It would be an appropriate thing to speak about in Humanities type courses in terms of its presence and impact in history.

What else I have to say? The issue that I have and I think many others have is that there is a line where evolution moves from being science to becoming metaphysical and philosophical. I don't know that I can define that line with exact precision, but there's something in me that knows when that line is being crossed. Evolution as science is narrower in scope that evolutionary philosophy where the material elements are expanded (along with the presuppositions of the Scientific Method which excludes the supernatural) to draw conclusions on issues that are no more science than what is objected to in ID or Creationism. There must be consistency on these issues. If you're going to allow for instance, abiogenesis to be taught as "science" in a manner that openly states or strongly infers that it serves as an explanation for origins that is to be accepted and which stands in opposition to Theism in the absence of hard science, then it shouldn't be making value statements to elevate it as more science than it is, or if they do, it's not right to exclude other views and explanations. Granted that can get confusing and convoluted. So, be consistent and keep the scope to science and have some sensitivity to where that line is and don't cross it.

[MarcusOfLycia]

This video does pretty well in summarizing my opinion on it. Plus its a heck of a lot funnier than I am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl1MClbdCj0

[Stu]

This video does pretty well in summarizing my opinion on it. Plus its a heck of a lot funnier than I am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl1MClbdCj0

Yeah I guess that about sums it up

Thanks, gonna use that vid in future debates

[MarcusOfLycia]

I feel like the first time I saw that video it was a link from this site... but I've since watched pretty much everything else the guy has done. Its all pretty good

[Ivellious]

I agree with most of what he says in the video. My only objection is his assertion that evolution wouldn't stand up to the same criticism that ID has dealt with. Because it has, for about 150 years. Evolution hasn't even been widely accepted for that long...my grandma didn't even learn about it in public high school 45 years ago. But, in time, scientists and the general educated population of the world recognized it not as ultimate truth (with exceptions like, say Richard Dawkins). Rather, it is regarded as the best and to this point only supported concept for explaining how life changed and developed and so on until this day and age.

Because of that, it should be taught as science's best explanation. Just like all science, evolution could one day be replaced. Heck, in the coming years we could have to toss out our old physics books in their entirity for string theory! Unlikely, I know, but the point is that all of science is NOT absolute. There is always room for improvement and revisions. So yeah, I get that we shouldn't teach it as truth, but nor should we stoop to teaching our best guess alongside religion, either.

I do agree with his point about creationism being taught in philosophy or humanities courses. As long as all (major) religions and worldviews are granted equal time, public schools should teach about religion. I know my high school taught the major religions of the world as part of the required "human geography" class, and I think most public schools do the same.

[neo-x]

Rather, it is regarded as the best and to this point only supported concept for explaining how life changed and developed and so on until this day and age.

Because of that, it should be taught as science's best explanation. Just like all science, evolution could one day be replaced. Heck, in the coming years we could have to toss out our old physics books in their entirity for string theory! Unlikely, I know, but the point is that all of science is NOT absolute. There is always room for improvement and revisions. So yeah, I get that we shouldn't teach it as truth, but nor should we stoop to teaching our best guess alongside religion, either.

You are quite comfortable in saying so. Sadly not everyone sees it that way. Evolution is not taught as "only supported concept" or "science's best explanation which can one day be replaced, if required". It is taught as a "FACT" and usually with overwhelming use of "OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS" with no openness or flexibility for any other opinion. You can say that the other opinions have no scientific merit but again that does not make up for the holes present in Evolution. One can say that evolution is by far the best we have come to understand origin, of which only micro evolution is observable and documented. But the way the term evolution is used, it suddenly makes the same miracle jump it accuses "ID" of making, and lacks evidence of it as well and then goes on to lump all of it together and call it science. Further it calls ID false on some of the same shortcomings it faces, like the total absence of any observable proof as macro evolution.

I am not much for ID, and I do think evolution has some merit. I just don't want to blow it out of proportion as most are doing out there. The whole idea and nature of science is that it should remain open to correction and catch up, not stick to an idea which has only some observable facts and the rest is just implied cuz we don't know any better. That would not be science.

[Ivellious]

I see that point. But I don't see how not accepting ID is considered "not moving forward" or "not being open to new ideas." If ID isn't scientific and is not a better explanation for the origins of species, then not accepting it is the right thing for scientists to do, right? Science isn't supposed to just accept things because they are new and different. I and the vast majority of scientists see no merit to ID from a scientific standpoint, so I don't see any reason for ID to get any say in public schools.