Evolution and Creationism in the classroom

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karen_B Human behaviour is a complex thing, and can't be explained by genetics alone. You could turn it around and say that risk taking is an advantage as well. Who knows, if we hadn't taken the risk to jump down from the trees and started walking the earth maybe we wouldn't be here today?

Making, of course, the assumption that at one point in time we lived in trees.

Sure, risk taking is an advantage, but ignoring survival instinct isn't so much.

I do agree that human behavior is a complex, unbelievably layered thing. Nature/nurture is a fantastic subject to read about and see come into play.

 

[SkylarV217]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher There is actually quite a bit of scientific evidence to prove evolution. None to prove creationism. Evolution is not under debate in most of the world, it is fact. I have never taken a college biology course, nor middle/high school biology course for that matter, where creationism was seriously discussed. I would argue that basic biology is very pertinent to school children.

I have personally done a lot of research on the subject. I'm the type of person that wishes to be well informed on all of my beliefs before I choose what I personally believe. As for Evolution as in humans and animals evolve to be more efficient and productive in their environment, that I have enough evidence to believe. The theory of Man Evolving from apes didn't have enough evidence to convince me. I had a hard time finding any for that matter.


Since evolutionists generally do not believe that man evolved from any ape that is now living, they look to fossils of humans and apes to provide them with their desired evidence. Specifically, they look for any anatomical feature that looks “intermediate” (between that of apes and man). Fossil apes having such features are declared to be ancestral to man (or at least collateral relatives) and are called hominids. Living apes, on the other hand, are not considered to be hominids, but rather are called hominoids because they are only similar to humans but did not evolve into them. Nonetheless, evolutionists are willing to accept mere similarities between the fossilized bones of extinct apes and the bones of living men as “proof” of our ape ancestry. That simply not enough "PROOF" for me

 

[Karen_B]

Shimmer, I feel the example is somewhat poor, since it is about a 15-year-old. Or do you believe that we are born with the judgement and risk assessment capabilities of grown-ups? When I was 5 years old I thought it would be fun to dive off a bunk bed to the floor where I had a (thin) mattress that I assumed would be protection enough for me. If my mother hadn't caught me and stopped me, I may very well have broken my neck and/or died. Was that evolution at work? Or just a child not understanding the consequences of her actions?
A teenager generally has bad judgement, compared to a grown-up.
I believe we all take stupid risks, and some are luckier than others. I do believe some take more stupid risks than others, but to generally say that one single dumb choice is down to poor genetics is a bit over the top.

 

[SkylarV217]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'm pretty sure that's nature's way of saying "Dumb people shouldn't breed." .

I wish it were law

My Dear sweet Shimmer, you make everything so interesting

 

[duckduck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkylarV217 To me , If there are no proven explanations as to where we came from, why is it necessary to teach anything. If there are no real answers why must it be taught. I for one don't want my child being told he came from an Ape. If that was proven its one thing, since it is not I don't want that thought in his mind. There's no need to teach things that haven't been proven when there are some many other things our children NEED to learn that they don't. There needs to be a standardization in what US children learn in school. Why worry about teaching something that no one is ever going to agree on when you could spend the time teaching more pertinent thing.

Well, there are other theories taught in public schools as well - things like the theory of classical electromagnetism or the theory of relativity and special relativity. Just because these theories aren't provable doesn't mean they aren't a valid thing to teach and learn, or that they don't have proven parts and predictive capabilities. In fact, I am typing to you on a computer & reading off of an LCD monitor, both of which contain many fundamental components which based on those (and other) scientific theories.

I think a major portion of high school is about helping teenagers to find things that interest them by giving them a wide diversity of subject matter to learn about. Some of that subject matter might be controversial, but I don't think that makes it invalid or not useful - if anything I think it helps to keep teens interested by creating disagreement and fostering discussion. Out of curiosity, If we were to remove origin of life from HS biology, what instead would be taught? Would you still want to have a biology course available, or would you replace it with something else entirely?

Anyways, this all leads me to think that maybe a US-wide standardization for these things it actually not such a good idea. I don't necessarily like the idea that children in the bible belt would not be privy to the scientific explanation of the origin of life, but if none of their parents or teachers feel they need to hear about it, then who am I to intervene?

 

[fafinette21]

I fully believe in evolution as the predominant belief, however I also think some focus should be given to Creationism as it was the main arguement against Evolution during that time. I don't think the religious aspect should be discussed in a biology class, but the components of the theory should be presented if only to highlight the differences between the two theories.
Also, evolution will never be "proven" (yea i'm splitting hairs here but whatev), neither can any other theory. A theory is never proven, only supported. However, evolution has A LOT of evidence supporting it. You can't say "let's not teach it because we're not 100% sure" otherwise nothing would ever be taught. I think it is extremely important that the theory of how the human race came into existence is an important aspect of biology and education.

In reference to the person walking across the traintracks, I don't believe you can apply NS to this situation. NS acts on phenotypes and unless this person consistently walked across traintracks, busy roads, etc., this does not really qualify as one. It could be just as simple as the person thought they would make it across and they were horribly wrong.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karen_B Shimmer, I feel the example is somewhat poor, since it is about a 15-year-old. Or do you believe that we are born with the judgement and risk assessment capabilities of grown-ups? When I was 5 years old I thought it would be fun to dive off a bunk bed to the floor where I had a (thin) mattress that I assumed would be protection enough for me. If my mother hadn't caught me and stopped me, I may very well have broken my neck and/or died. Was that evolution at work? Or just a child not understanding the consequences of her actions? A teenager generally has bad judgement, compared to a grown-up. I believe we all take stupid risks, and some are luckier than others. I do believe some take more stupid risks than others, but to generally say that one single dumb choice is down to poor genetics is a bit over the top.

100 years ago, 15 year olds were managing households, raising children, and married.
There wasn't always a culture of 15 year olds being as stupid as they are today (no offense intended to resident 15 year olds). Granted, life expectancy was shortened, but just because life expectancy has lengthened over the years doesn't mean that 15 year olds should be coddled or excused when it comes to these types of decisions.

That said, I agree with your last statement.

 

[frocher]

......

 

[Hilly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer 100 years ago, 15 year olds were managing households, raising children, and married. There wasn't always a culture of 15 year olds being as stupid as they are today (no offense intended to resident 15 year olds). Granted, life expectancy was shortened, but just because life expectancy has lengthened over the years doesn't mean that 15 year olds should be coddled or excused when it comes to these types of decisions. That said, I agree with your last statement.

15 Year olds being less responsible is due to parents/society whatever...not genetics/life expectancy. And I know a lot of responsible 15 year olds who work, help take care of the home, and take care of sibs.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilly 15 Year olds being less responsible is due to parents/society whatever...not genetics/life expectancy. And I know a lot of responsible 15 year olds who work, help take care of the home, and take care of sibs.

I understand what you're saying, but the excuse that "A 15 year old isn't capable of making the decision based on immaturity/whatever" doesn't wash with me because 100, 150 years ago, a 15 year old HAD to be that mature.

And there's a vast difference between working and helping vs actually being the bearer of the weight of the responsibility.

 

[duckduck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I completely disagree. At its most basic, NS is 'survival of the fittest'. It's not, based on the outcome, completely unreasonable to say that she ignored danger and completely disregarded any type of survival instinct. As I said, it's at its most basic level, but it's there, IMO. (This is, of course, hypothetically speaking; I've not yet met anyone who's lost a child because the child decided to completely ignore any and all cross arms, warnings, lights, flashing lights, rumblings, and commotion caused by several tons of metal moving along at 20 mph+).

I love that you are this persistent and bright - I'm busting out books and calling evo-bio friends to try and work this one out, because honestly, I am no longer sure that my original statement was right, and I'm not sure if yours is either. I don't have the whole thing worked out yet, but seriously, if you ever get into materials science research, I want you in my lab to argue with.

Human evolution is so ridiculously complicated - this would have been a lot easier if you had just talked about a microbe or a beetle or a blue-footed booby or something.

 

[Hilly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer And there's a vast difference between working and helping vs actually being the bearer of the weight of the responsibility.

Maybe you need to visit Pasadena, TX where several kids have to drop out of HS to be the bearer of income in their homes.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckduck I love that you are this persistent and bright - I'm busting out books and calling evo-bio friends to try and work this one out, because honestly, I am no longer sure that my original statement was right, and I'm not sure if yours is either. I don't have the whole thing worked out yet, but seriously, if you ever get into materials science research, I want you in my lab to argue with. Human evolution is so ridiculously complicated - this would have been a lot easier if you had just talked about a microbe or a beetle or a blue-footed booby or something.

Mr. Shimmer says I should have been a litigator.

I'm not sure my statement is 100% correct, but that's how I perceive the situation.

Beetles and bugs and birds are nowhere near as much fun to talk about and they don't get nearly as mad as people do (and therefore aren't as entertaining).

 

[frocher]

...........

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilly Maybe you need to visit Pasadena, TX where several kids have to drop out of HS to be the bearer of income in their homes.

Neh. I grew up in Telephone TX where lots of kids have to do the same.

But you're making my point for me...you're claiming that these kids are bearing the responsibility (albeit not well, since the cycle is perpetuating) and are able to do so. By saying that, it negates the excuse that a 15 year old isn't capable of making a decision in the interest of self preservation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher Yes, but then we are taking nurture, not nature.

That's very true...but some things instinctively aren't going to be changed via nature OR nurture.

 

[Hilly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer 100 years ago, 15 year olds were managing households, raising children, and married. There wasn't always a culture of 15 year olds being as stupid as they are today (no offense intended to resident 15 year olds)..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer But you're making my point for me...you're claiming that these kids are bearing the responsibility (albeit not well, since the cycle is perpetuating) and are able to do so.

You were first saying 15 year olds are stupid now and basically don't do as they did 100 years ago, but then you say they are? Hmmm....i guess I got a lil confused by your posts...

Basically kids having to be adults at 15 isn't a good thing. let then stay in school, get educated, etc. It's not something I like seeing when kids I work with have to be the bearers of the income when they are teens.
I also disagree with your statement about 15 year olds being stupid. They are FORTUNATE that they don't have to work 40 hours and drop out of school. They are being adolescents- learning about life through their decisions. Making stupid choices is about growing up and learning from experience- not being a stupid PERSON.

 

[hr44]

As a bio major... I think the main goal is to FIRST explain the definition of THEORY! I am such a firm believer on instilling the definition of theory before touching into evolution.
On top of that... science classes should explain the scientific theory throughly (well as much as a HS does) but also include the other known variations known to be around. Especially including the history of how the theory came about. It is important for students to be educated and not biased about a subject, that way when they grow older they may be willing to LEARN more about the other side even if they don't agree.

Prime example- one of my close friends is strong in his Islamic faith and yet still took an Evolution course last semester. He didn't agree with it one bit but he wanted to know more.

I just feel it is important to know all sides. Even if only one side is TAUGHT, teachers should TELL the students that there are other variations to the idea that may better suits their own ideals. This way they can at least do research on their own and not automatically absorb ONE IDEA and accept it to be true.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilly You were first saying 15 year olds are stupid now and basically don't do as they did 100 years ago, but then you say they are? Hmmm....i guess I got a lil confused by your posts...

What?
Is there a culture of 15 year olds being stupid? Damn right there is. I've got one in my household who is stupid in ways only a 15 year old can be. That's not a slight on him, that's a reality he'll have to mature and over come.
Quote:

Basically kids having to be adults at 15 isn't a good thing. let then stay in school, get educated, etc. It's not something I like seeing when kids I work with have to be the bearers of the income when they are teens. I also disagree with your statement about 15 year olds being stupid. They are FORTUNATE that they don't have to work 40 hours and drop out of school. They are being adolescents- learning about life through their decisions. Making stupid choices is about growing up and learning from experience- not being a stupid PERSON.

No, it's not a good thing, because in our culture, 15 - 18 year olds are in school and still learning, instead of having to be married and taking care of their property (as they were not too very many generations ago).
Adolescence in the 20s, 30s, and 40s was during the 12 to 15 year old range of a person's life. Adulthood started much earlier then compared to now. There's a much larger range now where it's acceptable to make mistakes or to learn about life and have it excused as maturation. If it weren't more acceptable now to hang on to adolescence a little longer, we wouldn't have such a lovely prevalence of 25+ year olds who are functionally helpless and sorely lacking in coping skills.

 

[frocher]

........

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher I understand your point, but evolution is based on us naturally selecting for more favorable traits to ensure our survival. For example, perhaps the 15 year old on the train tracks has a risk taker gene that was preferable when we had to hunt large animals in order to feed ourselves. Then that gene would be necessary for our survival, not so much now. Teenagers today could be experiencing longer childhoods because now it is preferble in our society to get an advanced degrees, in order to support themselves better. When they spend so much time studying, some responsibilities naturally expected of them in the past have fallen to the wayside. This extended childhood is relatively new, perhaps the genes have not caught up to our societal expectations.

Perhaps not, but in saying that I think it's fair to acknowledge that the 15 year old in question isn't suited to our society, and as such, failed to thrive.
Evolution/change isn't a sudden process, it's a process that would take generations and generations before the real effects are seen. And, incidents like the one we're discussing right now would simply be a small part of a bigger picture.