Evolution vs Creation in public schools

[force my hand]

It appears we have a least a handful of creationists here, so it's worth asking.

Feel free to post any related comments you might have concerning the whole debate. i.e. are both ideas equal in merit?

[Slacker]

The day creationism is taught in my daughter's school is the day I start homeschooling.

[implied]

going with slackermom on this. edit: i recall when the topic was brought up in highschool, my textbook on the topic had a short chapter about why creationism was another viewpoint etc. i don't see anything wrong with giving other points of view on the matter or acknowledging that there are groups of people who hold this opinion quite strongly. on the other hand, i really see no real reason to give it precedence over anything re: evolution. in other words, i find it would be a little ridiculous to pretend as though the pov doesn't exist. i'd rather kids make up their own minds. but i can't see presenting it as a science. so my final vote is evolution as a science, creationism as a social study.

[HollywoodWanderer]

I don't think both have equal merit nor do I think creationism should be taught as an alternative but, as far as I understand there seem to be flaws with evolutionary theory that aren't being addressed because evolution has become one of the pillars of science that stands in opposition the backwoods nation mentality. One such flaw was that indivudal organisms themselves could not evolve. It is now not controversial to say that individual organisms could evolve (with gene therapy for example) but, this would have been quite controversial to say in the 1970s. There are still other holdovers from the 1970s american pedagogist/1930s scopes trial advocates/19th century daerwinianism that simply do not seem to apply or are wrong in how they interpret possible genetic change in organisms. As we learn more and more about how we can alter our world we have to apply that knowledge retroactively to already accepted theories and I think that will naturally expand our view of what is possible.

[force my hand]

I don't think both have equal merit nor do I think creationism should be taught as an alternative but, as far as I understand there seem to be flaws with evolutionary theory that aren't being addressed because evolution has become one of the pillars of science that stands in opposition the backwoods nation mentality.

I don't pretend to be an expert on evolution, but could you provide one specific example of an issue that is not being addressed by the scientific community?

Edited for clarification. You gave the following example:

For example, it is now not controversial to say that individual organisms could evolve (with gene therapy for example) but, this would have been quite controversial to say in the 1970s.

If such is the case, I would argue this is evidence for scientists addressing flaws in evolutionary theory.

[Creepy-bg]

neither should be taught to children... I say let them pick it up on the streets along with socionics and sex.

[force my hand]

neither should be taught to children... I say let them pick it up on the streets along with socionics and sex.

Dammit. I KNEW I forgot a poll option...

[implied]

neither should be taught to children... I say let them pick it up on the streets along with socionics and sex.

best answer yet. (;

[Brilliand]

neither should be taught to children... I say let them pick it up on the streets along with socionics and sex.

Actually, I would prefer that to what I voted. I believe Creation to be correct (and therefore that Evolution has no place), but I am weary of the debate. I see Evolution as useless, and Creation only seems to be useful for theology (hence the terrible religious attack posed by Evolution), so there doesn't seem to be much need for either being taught in schools. This reaises the question of what should be taught in schools, and in fact I am mildly against the entire school system. However, there seem to be a few things with no opposition (i.e. reading and arithmetic), and the school system is an efficient way to teach those (provided the teacher fits the student). Perhaps the school system should just go back to being optional, not merely in the sense that homeschooling is allowed, but also in the sense that homeschoolers do not have to pay for public school.

@Loki: As presented in school, Evolution is in fact a claim of truth. If theories were presented in schools as not necessarily true, many children would probably refuse to believe them on that ground alone.

Creation was derived from a historical text, and as such has just as much validity as a theory made up in modern times - depending, of course, on the validity of said text. A fair compromise might be to ignore all mention of "God" and add up the genealogies.

[Enters Laughing]

Explanations of the evolutionary process are so accurate that it is possible for new species of bacteria to be created from a parent species in the laboratory.

If evolution doesn't operate in the way explained by scientists, then the explanation will be rewritten in accordance with the evidence.

[HollywoodWanderer]

I don't pretend to be an expert on evolution, but could you provide one specific example of an issue that is not being addressed by the scientific community?

I think there is a general idea that evolution has a particular end or goal. That it is a force trying to create something. Even scientists seem to think this way when they speak about humans evolving beyond a particular restraint. Evolution from this point of view is ACTIVE. I don't think this fits in with the more deterministic view taken by modern physics. I'm not particularly an advocate of determinism (or modern physics) but, I don't think there isn't a precise understanding of how/why retrograde evolution occurs and what (if anything) that implies. Also, there seems to be no attempt to incorporate the concept of "random" quantum change into evolution which in and of itself may be a stake through the heart for evolutionary theory (sequences found as the outcomes of many random dice rolls [I am using this as an analogy for how particles behave] aren't necessarily substantiable.)

Edit: And yes, scientists do correct themselves slowly over time but, like all people who have become entrenched in a particular culture their adoption of new language outside of their field of reference is slow going (they tend to put everything into terms that they are already comfortable/familiar with). I think that this is why it took so long for neuroscience to begin to truely thrive for example (because traditionally science/reason has been seen as in opposition to emotion/feeling/etc).

[force my hand]

I think there is a general idea that evolution has a particular end or goal. That it is a force trying to create something. Even scientists seem to think this way when they speak about humans evolving beyond a particular restraint.

I would largely disagree. From our own example here on Earth, there is indeed a tendency to assume a trend towards higher complexity. However, this is not necessarily a truth. Consider first the evolutionary stagnation (relatively speaking) of prokaryotes during the Archean, over 2.5 billion years ago. Then consider the numerous mass extinctions that have occured, essentially resetting the evolutionary clock. Depending on criteria, one could argue there have been several evolutionary ends within the history of the Earth. Even if you take the long view and assume that present-day human intelligence is an 'end', there is nothing to suggest evolution was destined to result in homo sapiens or that we are the culmination of evolution's path on Earth. Because indeed, it has not stopped.

Evolution from this point of view is ACTIVE. I don't think this fits in with the more deterministic view taken by modern physics. I'm not particularly an advocate of determinism (or modern physics) but, I don't think there isn't a precise understanding of how/why retrograde evolution occurs and what (if anything) that implies.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, or how you're using the term deterministic. I wouldn't have considered modern day physics deterministic, but perhaps I'm lacking some important info.

One case of retrograde evolution could occur because the changes benefit the individuals, but we are tricked into deeming the change 'bad', especially ignoring a potential environmental change. Another case could be reliant on a resource suplus, for example. Do you have a specific one in mind?

Also, there seems to be no attempt to incorporate the concept of "random" quantum change into evolution which in and of itself may be a stake through the heart for evolutionary theory (sequences found as the outcomes of many random dice rolls [I am using this as an analogy for how particles behave] aren't necessarily substantiable.)

I don't think you're talking about physics, but if you are, why would a field of of cellular-level biology take special care to worry about subatomic-level physics? I don't see the connection. Moving a rock from Winnipeg to Kansas City doesn't affect plate tectonics and the shape of North America.

Not so say for sure it isn't a factor. I suppose one could stretch an idea to include Brownian motion, something which if I'm not mistaken does indeed play a role. But it's also well understood.

Edit: And yes, scientists do correct themselves slowly over time but, like all people who have become entrenched in a particular culture their adoption of new language outside of their field of reference is slow going (they tend to put everything into terms that they are already comfortable/familiar with). I think that this is why it took so long for neuroscience to begin to truely thrive for example (because traditionally science/reason has been seen as in opposition to emotion/feeling/etc).

You're probably not a creationist, but inherent to the scientific method is this evolution of thinking, based on critical examination. This does not happen in any religion to which I've been exposed, and certainly doesn't occur in creationism.

[marooned]

I don't think creationism belongs in school or that it is a valid "theory" of anything. It seems the only reason to include it would be to somehow accommodate those who "don't believe in" evolution, which is really ridiculous. "Creationism" is not an alternative theory, it isn't even a theory. It can be taught in the World Religions class (if there is one) alongside all the other creation stories from other religions. It does not belong in any science class because it is NOT science. As for the theory of evolution it is that, a theory... it's not even on the same plane as "Creationism." It is not a claim of truth; it is a theory built off of available evidence. Theories are always subject to change (if new evidence is presented). It is simply science. It astonishes me that it has the power to offend anyone. Getting offended over it and saying that Creationism should be taught with it or instead of it seems to be taking the whole thing out of context.

[Hitta]

I honestly don't see whats wrong with teaching the theory of intelligent design. I'm agnostic, I'm not religious or anything; but I mean intelligent design is a theory just like anything else. Denying someone a chance to learn things like that is denying someone to make a decision about something on their own.