Evolution and Creationism in the classroom

[Hilly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer 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. 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.

Societal evolution at its finest! But that isn't a new phenomenon. There have always been slackers in every generation. I know teens who are WAY more mature than some people in their late 20s. It's all your perspective. I am a positive person- I don't actively seek the "bad" in people. So sure a 15 year old making a bad choice sucks, but they will most likely learn from it. but when you focus on 15 year olds being "stupid" because of their age, then you're just setting yourself up to meet those perceptions. Look at the good in people of ALL ages.

Ok I think this has gone a lil off topic....

 

[frocher]

........

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilly Societal evolution at its finest! But that isn't a new phenomenon. There have always been slackers in every generation. I know teens who are WAY more mature than some people in their late 20s. It's all your perspective. I am a positive person- I don't actively seek the "bad" in people. So sure a 15 year old making a bad choice sucks, but they will most likely learn from it. but when you focus on 15 year olds being "stupid" because of their age, then you're just setting yourself up to meet those perceptions. Look at the good in people of ALL ages. Ok I think this has gone a lil off topic....

I generally expect people to be people, regardless of their age, color, creed, or gender. But I've also observed people enough over the past several years in various living environments to know and see certain behaviors.

It is a societal evolution, though, ultimately, I don't think it's a good one. there's a VAST difference in a slacker and someone who's completely incapable of functioning in normal society without a prop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher I agree that many young adults are lacking in basic skills needed to be a functional adult, that is the fault of the parents. However, we have to weigh the pros and cons. Getting married at 18 and having kids will greatly reduce your chance of having property to take care of in our society. It is unfortunate but true that an advantaged degree is becoming a necessity in our society, not a luxury. Perhaps having less responsible young adults is a necessary evil in order to ensure their future prosperity. Although, they do not have to be as irresponsible as many young adults are, parents should teach them more, but that is a different issue.

Is it really? More and more I see articles on MSN, yahoo, etc. saying that perhaps college degrees aren't worth the money put into them.
I'm not talking about irresponsible adults. I'm talking about people who can't function in a setting that would require them to make those kinds of decisions.

 

[frocher]

.........

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher Yes, and those people writing those articles are all benefiting from an advanced degree. I find it hilarious when well educated individuals state other don't need to be well educated to be successful.

I'm not completely sold on that. EX: My husband engineers for his company, but is completely self taught. That can't be a unique case...

 

[frocher]

...........

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher I am sure it's not, but in our increasingly competitive society it's best to stack the deck in your favor. I have known a few self educated people that have done extremely well for themselves. However I have known many, many more people with good educations that have succeeded. The road to prosperity isn't absolutely paved in $200 text books, but it tends to be a shorter path and much more traveled. Unfortunate, but true.

100% agree on that!

 

[SingFrAbsoltion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher I am sure it's not, but in our increasingly competitive society it's best to stack the deck in your favor. I have known a few self educated people that have done extremely well for themselves. However I have known many, many more people with good educations that have succeeded. The road to prosperity isn't absolutely paved in $200 text books, but it tends to be a shorter path and much more traveled. Unfortunate, but true.

It just depends what you're going for. You can't be a self taught doctor or lawyer, for example.

About the previous discussion, it ventured into the whole nature vs nurture territory(genes vs environment) and there was never consensus about that even in scientific circles. Agree to disagree.

 

[Shadowy Lady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'm not completely sold on that. EX: My husband engineers for his company, but is completely self taught. That can't be a unique case...

I don't know about the US, but you cannot be a self taught engineer in Canada. For professions such as engineers, doctors and lawyers you need your college degree plus your ethinc exam.

 

[frocher]

...........

 

[rbella]

I think this is too much deep thought for me. It hurts my head. Perhaps I shall visit the clearance bin.

 

[Paramnesia]

Ha rbella.

Quote:

I don't think it would be harmful, however, to teach children about a variety of religions, and each of their main ideas about how life was created, their pillars, etc.

I completely agree.
I was only ever taught Christianity in religious education in Primary school. I think it limits a child's choice in believe systems, if children were taught various religions I feel it would decrease racial/religious tension.

I am biased because I'm studying biological science at uni, hence my 'belief' in Darwinism. Though I'm open to other feasible scientific theories.

 

[Karen_B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer That said, I agree with your last statement.

Then what was the point of your example?

 

[S.S.BlackOrchid]

Students should be taught different views (including studying creation stories from other cultures). This is so that they can think critically evaluate different perspectives and learn that there are opinions besides their own out there.

Yes, many people believe in the theory of evolution, but that doesn't make it fact. I definitely believe in natural selection in animals (it can be observed in nature), but no one can prove definitely that we came from ape. Having more evidence on one side vs. another, doesn't make it fact. Students shouldn't have either theory pushed down their throats, and shouldn't be belittled for their beliefs.

 

[ratmist]

I am an archaeologist and I have over ten years of training in prehistory.

Fact: Molecular science has shown that human beings and two of the African great apes - the chimpanzee and the bonobo - share a common ancestor that lived 5 million years ago.

Fact: To find a common ancestor for mankind and all of the great apes, including the orang and gorilla, you have to go back 13 million years.

Fact: The timeline of evolution has been compressed since the 1960s due to advances in molecular science.

Now, past these facts we now have growing bodies of evidence about when human beings started to look human. However, human-looking doesn't mean cognitive thinking, etc., are in place yet. There is a huge body of growing evidence that allows us to reasonably argue - not merely suggest - that we evolved in Africa from a common ancestor about 2 and a half million years ago.

The question isn't "did we evolve?" The question is when did we evolve, and under what circumstances, and why. Working out the details is what some people confuse as theory. The details are facts that have to be shuffled around as new evidence emerges. The fact that we have new evidence emerging all the time is encouraging - not something to be afraid of, or something to be used as an excuse not to teach evolution to children.

The analogy I love the most: if someone dressed up an early human ancestor, say Homo rudolfensis (named after a site near Lake Rudolf in Kenya), in a suit and a tie and sent him down Main Street, he'd probably scare the children but not necessarily the horses, and he'd be recognizably human. And he died out over two million years ago, to be replaced by Homo erectus (Pryor 2004).

The point I'm trying to make is this: human evolution is messy, difficult to understand, and absolutely full of factual evidence. This isn't a good enough reason to say that children should be taught that evolution is just another theory like any other, alongside other, more easily digestable theories - such as the existence of a creator of the universe.

My reasoning can be summed up by an anonymous post found on the TalkOrigins.org site in 2003:

Evolution matters because science matters, and too many people (including some presidents) are willing to believe that science is something you can pick and choose from, with "good" science being anything that supports your own views and "bad" science being anything that doesn't. Physicists are great guys because they say nothing to offend us, biologists are mad scientists leading us down the path to perdition with their genetic meddling, evolutionists are self-delusional fools, and anyone studying environmental science is a left-wing tree-hugging extremist whose sole goal is to destroy the American economy and lead us to one-world government. If scientists in a given discipline argue about any conclusion, whoever says what you want to hear is the right one. Too many people can't accept that although scientists are not perfect, and do make mistakes (sometimes whoppers), science isn't something you can pick through like a buffet, accepting only what is to your "taste" and designating the rest inedible. If people feel free to reject the science of evolution, they feel free to reject any science on no better grounds. Whether my students accept evolution may have little direct effect on my future. Whether they understand biology, ecology, environmental geology (water is a big issue in my community), and other subjects and can make informed decisions regarding scientific issues does matter. If they feel free to reject evolution as part of a "buffet" approach to science, their other choices will be no better informed.​

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Evolution matters because science matters, and too many people (including some presidents) are willing to believe that science is something you can pick and choose from, with "good" science being anything that supports your own views and "bad" science being anything that doesn't. Physicists are great guys because they say nothing to offend us, biologists are mad scientists leading us down the path to perdition with their genetic meddling, evolutionists are self-delusional fools, and anyone studying environmental science is a left-wing tree-hugging extremist whose sole goal is to destroy the American economy and lead us to one-world government. If scientists in a given discipline argue about any conclusion, whoever says what you want to hear is the right one. Too many people can't accept that although scientists are not perfect, and do make mistakes (sometimes whoppers), science isn't something you can pick through like a buffet, accepting only what is to your "taste" and designating the rest inedible. If people feel free to reject the science of evolution, they feel free to reject any science on no better grounds. Whether my students accept evolution may have little direct effect on my future. Whether they understand biology, ecology, environmental geology (water is a big issue in my community), and other subjects and can make informed decisions regarding scientific issues does matter. If they feel free to reject evolution as part of a "buffet" approach to science, their other choices will be no better informed.​

Great quote.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous Great quote.

I only wish it wasn't from an anonymous source.

 

[kaliraksha]

I remember being 15 and I can't imagine any of my 15 yr old friends not having the "judgment" to stay off train tracks. Basically speaking, all of us wanted to stay alive and took precautions to do so.

Also, recently University researchers from the Netherlands have begin to uncover what is being dubbed a "clumsy gene".

On the other side of the argument, isn't there a part of the natural selection that accounts for randomness or freak accidents?

 

[athena123]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I'm only addressing the topic at hand and the poll. I voted for the first option, to focus on evolution with brief mention of other beliefs.

I find the anti-intellectual and anti-scientific trend in the USA very disturbing. We're going backwards and regressing to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of some.

That's not to say religion has no value, but it has it's proper place. To teach comparative religion, I have no problem with that but I suspect the politics would make it very difficult when Christians of the fundamentalist stripe object to their religion being taught along with the Greek Gods, Nordic gods or Hinduism.

So many people fighting the "evolution" vs. "creation" battle don't seem to realize that Darwin was a Christian. He wasn't anti-god by any means; he was originally planning to become a clergyman when his studies of natural history led him to conclude that the age of the earth didn't conform to the text within Genesis. His wife, extremely devout, didn't want him to publish his work until after his death. He was planning to honor her wish when another man named Wallace, also a naturalist, arrived at the same conclusions independently. Rather than preempted by Wallace, both Wallace and Darwin presented their beliefs together.

And then, of course, all hell was raised and it's pretty much been going ever since.

 

[pumpkincat210]

I think the theory of evolution should be taught in biology as well as other non-religious scientific theories too. You could also teach it is philosophy and world religions too. Bringing up creationism in biology class does make one think, IMO, and not just give up because you know the answer, it just makes you look at a different path to find scientific answers. For example the Golden Ratio or divine ratio, 1.6180339887, pops up everywhere in science. Does this mean an intelligent being created us? In the future someday I think both evolution and creationism may coexist equally if more evidence about evolution is not found. Even after we find that we did evolve from a little molecule what is after that? How did the little molecule get there? How did space and time get here? Was it here, is it eternity in both directions of time? We may find the answer is too big and complex for human understanding scientific wise or deity wise.