Should evolution be taught in High School?

Question

Here me out. I am a senior biochemistry major and fully understand, believe, and support the workings and mechanisms of evolution. I'm also totally against creation being taught in schools. However, I would not be so attuned to this slightly advanced science if it wasn't for my fluency in science. I am wondering if evolution is something that should be taught later in high school (I was first taught about it as a sophomore) like as part of a senior year science.

The only reason why I ask this is because I've looked at so many anti-evolution questions on here and it's all from people who are misinterpreting the science. Most of the time, it's a complete misinterpretation. Apparently the simple idea that we have a common ancestor isn't cutting it for a lot of people. Maybe if they were a little more understanding of the scientific reasons why, then there wouldn't be such an issue. Or maybe it's impossible to take the 7 days out of the bible without people thinking irrationally.

Answer 1

I'm relieved and encouraged with the intelligent responses to this good question. Of course, it is in the science category; I'm sure the results would be pretty different under religion, or perhaps even education.

Your question earned a thumbs up from me, as it's a useful and valid one, on an important subject. It made me think, for some time. And while I agree with practically everything you said, I lean pretty strongly toward *early* teaching.

You don't say where your fluency in science came from, but I would imagine you received a good educational foundation on the subject long before high school. Whether that was from parents, your formative school years, your own investigations, or a combination, I believe that early indoctrination is key to understanding it all.

Starting on the subject of evolution in the senior year of high school would be terribly unproductive, I'm afraid, not only because of the distractions of relationships and impending graduation, but because there is just too much to absorb about the world in such a short time. Teaching is *like* evolution, in a sense.... It's much easier to grasp many small steps than to try to jump to the last chapter all at once.

It's also easier to write facts onto a clean slate than on top of older ideas. The human brain is voraciously soaking up concepts about the world before the child even enters kindergarten. Unfortunately, as emucompboy mentioned, that includes the very *un*scientific ideas presented in Sunday School, as well as by some parents and relatives -- even well meaning ones.

The concepts of evolution are really quite simple, and make an immense amount of sense to anyone willing and able to see the very big picture of time, and the very small changes involved. A child is more likely to accept these viewpoints than a teen who has already been exposed to many other ideas, from often questionable sources.

I agree that so many anti-evolution viewpoints presented here (and elsewhere) are from those whose understanding of science is pitifully weak. To me, that implies a need for earlier (and better) education, not only in science facts, but in *thinking* scientifically and critically.

As Aviator said, religious beliefs are often a hinderance to science education, though I disagree that teaching science doesn't help. When children are presented with ideas that make sense to them, they'll be more likely to reject less reasonable or unprovable ones, from religion to pseudoscience to myths and urban legends.

I still remember having difficulty accepting my 1st- or 2nd-grade *Catholic* teacher's assertion that God just "always was." Perhaps I had a genetic predisposition to being skeptical and inquisitive, but I have to wonder if my early interest and immersion in science was all that protected me from wholesale swallowing of the religious dogma being taught. (Mind you, I'm not an atheist, and I realize this question isn't about religion.) True, at some point, many students have already made up their mind, due to faith-based teachings, that the scientific explanation is crap. But I say that's all the more reason to teach it early.

We should begin to teach children to think critically (carefully) as early as kindergarten, and begin to teach science at the same time. It doesn't have to be on the level of genetics or cosmology or chemistry for a scientific foundation and mindset to take hold. And that mindset would, I'm convinced, benefit both the student and the world.

No matter how powerful the evidence, of course, there will always be a problem getting some people to even *consider* the idea that we could arise without a Creator, because that may also imply that we will not live forever, or that our lack of faith will condemn us to Hell. I doubt that science teachings, at any age, can rid the world of self-delusion, or fear.

I'd like to add that sub7ime gave an excellent explanation of scientific theory, as opposed to the way many people use the word. 'Hypothesis' is probably the word most people really want when describing a preliminary idea which hasn't been tested.

Evolution--being about as close to scientific fact as is our clear understanding of how a car works, and overwhelmingly supported by evidence of many types--deserves a solid place in early science schooling. And, unless they're in a philosophy class, I strongly agree with you that creationism and Intelligent Design do not.

Answer 2

In response to an above poster: natural selection is a theory, just like gravity is a theory. 'Theory' is the strongest level of endorsement that can be given to an idea in science, and it is totally different from what you or I might mean when talking about 'theories'. This is an important distinction that often gets muddled in the press. At any rate, you *could* disprove natural selection, whereas you *could not* disprove intelligent design/creationism/etc. If something is not empirically falsifiable, it is philosophy, not science.

In response to the originally posed question: I think that evolution, and all science and math, should be taught much earlier than later. We don't wait to teach grammar rules until late high school; we shouldn't wait to teach advanced mathematical concepts or fundamental scientific insights, either.

Consider GH Hardy, the famed British mathematician who developed the Hardy-Weinberg equations for population genetics (p+q=1 and p^2+2pq+q^2=1). He was ashamed to publish these fundamental genetic formulas because he considered them so obvious. To the biologists at the time, however, it was far from obvious. Our scientists didn't (and still don't) know enough math, and our citizens don't understand nearly enough math or science. Early education in math and science would be the best step in the right direction.

Answer 3

IMO, there is an obvious problem with the Creationists' argument that, since Creationism and evolution are both theories, neither one should be given greater weight in the classroom. The fact is, Creationism has no scientific evidence to support it, while evolution at least has scientific evidence. Just because an answer can't be proven to be correct doesn't mean it can't be "more correct" than another answer. Or, to quote Bill Maher, "It is unnecessary to present two theories when one theory is obviously a load of crap".

Answer 4

It's obvious from a lot of these answers that people do not understand evolution at all. Stating that evolution is just a theory...as if that's some sort of argument against evolution...is very telling as to that persons scientific background.

I think that perhaps this means that maybe we should be teaching it to even younger students. Perhaps that they don't get it...means we should be making more of an effort...not less.

Answer 5

They do teach it, in biology class. I was also taught creationism in an anthropology class I took in high school. They don't do a very good job of it though because I have met many people (a lot in this section of Y Q&A) who really don't understand much on the subject. I took a Physical Anthropology class in college that really went into detail on the subject. It was that class that really gave me most of my knowledge on evolution and the related sciences.

Answer 6

You bring up a very good point.

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science

But I think it is more of a cultural thing rather then a scholstic thing. There is a very heavy influence of religoin in this country. I agree with you that many poeple are not that educated on evolution. But I would guess that only about 1-5% of those would actually change their minds if they understood it better. This is because most of them are rejecting evolution because of religious reasons. Think about it, it's not like their more educated on creationism and that's why they chose that, becasue there is no science to learn on creationism. They aren't basing their belief of science, so teaching them science doesn't help.

Answer 7

Religions - all of them - should be banned in school. They are evil indoctrination that ruin lives and have caused immense suffering across time and all over the world. They are behind most of the wars currently being waged.

Once religion and all of its insidious evil is out of the way there is no reason not to teach evolution. And perhaps then those here who think all theories are equal would learn to think - and would learn that theories like evolution are so well supported to be considered as factual as the theory of Newtonian mechanics.

Answer 8

Evolution is a theory based on Darwin's observation and species on an island in the Pacific I think. His observations were too limited and problems with his theory exist. For example, the continued existence of evolved species that should be extinct and the existence of "sports". Of course, apes never came into it. The religious hard shells cannot reconcile this with the fable of Genesis. I think it should be taught with the fallacies explained.

Answer 9

Education, in general, should be improved.

They had a study that said only 30% of high school students could identify New York state on a map. It doesn't surprise me that people misinterpret science.

Answer 10

Maybe it should be taught much earlier, in elementary school, before the poor kids get indoctrinated by years of pernicious Sunday School.

Things I learned in Sunday School:
a) The wine in the Bible was actually grape juice
(Yeah right, Noah and Jonah got plenty drunk)
b) It's hard to hold a glass of water in your hand with your arm extended for more than a few minutes, but God is so wonderful, he does that with the oceans, indefinitely!
(Yeah right. God created gravity so he wouldn't have to hold things together manually)
c) Who sins? I sin! Cover the "s" and "n" with your hands and you're left with "I" !
Who dies? All those who eat! Cover the "d" and "h" in "death" and you're left with "eat" !
(Yeah right. I bet that works in the ancient hebraic and aramaic written scripts too. Sure)