Evolutionists? Do you think that it would be wrong to "teach the controversy"?

Question

What I mean is, do you feel uncomfortable with teachers letting school children know that there are other ideas out there about where life began and how it developed?
Suppose a teacher were to say something like, "In this class, we are going to teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution...but before we begin, I'd like to make it clear that there are other ideas about where life came from and how it developed. If you'd like to explore some of these ideas ON YOUR OWN, these books are available" and then proceed to give the children a short list of books that they can read FOR THEMSELVES that discuss other ideas, such as Intelligent Design?
Why or why not?

So, in other words, most of you don't even want kids to have a chance to explore other ideas on their own?
My, you guys are running scared, aren't you?
And yet, as a Christian, I am open to allowing my children to explore not only other religions, but also atheism. After all, if a child is force fed ANY ideas...then they aren't his/her ideas, are they?
If you totally refuse to even allow kids to explore other ideas on their own, how will they KNOW you are not lying to them?
Just a thought....

Yes, let's suppose that someone actually were to write a book that states that life arose from the snot of a cartoon mouse. (I've heard sillier ideas...but not many of them.) Obviously, if I let my kid read the book, he'd laugh and set it aside, thinking his Mom was playing a colossal joke on him by even mentioning it.
IF other ideas are so ridiculous, why the horrible fear? Let the kids explore...and let them come to their own conclusions.
I guarantee that no kid with even normal intelligence is going to believe in the giant cartoon mouse snot theory.

Ahh, but Marble, I did not suggest that any other ideas be taught in science class as science...but only that the teacher refer the students to other books that deal with other ideas, and let them decide for themselves whether they want to read them ON THEIR OWN.
Teach Darwin's evolution...it is what I was taught, back in sixth grade, and not only did it not hurt me at all, it didn't mess with my Christian faith even one tiny iota...and now, we're told it isn't even introduced till high school?
Shocking!!

Erm, Printninja, just so you know, I have heard several pastors suggest that kids read Darwin's "Origin of Species"...and that they delve into the facts surrounding the issues being debated.
Christians are not hiding anything, so there is no need for us to run like scared rabbits...

Answer 1

Whoa...hold up. Where is the THEORY of evolution proven fact? I think the theory has a lot of merit to it...but it is not proven fact. Adaptation and natural selection are proven fact...but full blown macro evolution is theory and has not been proven fact. Besides, many things are are taught in schools that are not "fact". For example, the Civil War was fought for the rights of slavery....fact? On the same subject...the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves....fact?

Some of you put a little too much "faith" in the education system.

Answer 2

Being open-minded means a willingness to look at the evidence. It doesn't mean refusing to make a distinction between sense and nonsense. That's not being open-minded, it's being weak-minded.

You defeat your own argument with the words, "There are other ideas about how life began and how it developed." The ID folks have no ideas about how life began and how it developed. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation. There argument essentially consists of saying if science hasn't explained something today, then God did it, and that's the end of the subject. That's not science. It's anti-science.

The intelligent design movement was a cynical attempt to discredit the theory of evolution and replace it not with another scientific theory, but with the Biblical story of creation. The whole "theory" of intelligent design is just a red herring, to create the appearance of controversy where there is none. Then people like you get to pretend to be the voice of sweet reason: "Why not teach the controversy? Are you afraid to teach the controversy?"

If you believe that intelligent design deserves a place in our science classes, either alongside or in place of evolutionary theory, then say so and state your reasons why. The scenario you outlined is a rhetorical trap you are trying to set for your opponents, to cast them in the role of the book-burners while you and the other fundamentalist Christians pose as the defenders of free inquiry. I don't know whether to laugh, or puke, or both.

We live in a world of finite resources. We don't have time to teach every failed, discredited idea. We don't teach astrology, alchemy, or tarot reading in science class. Intelligent design ought to be given the same low level of priority.

Answer 3

Depends on what is being taught. The basic teaching of science is using the scientific method. Observe, formulate hypothesis, test etc.--a method that can be duplicated by impartial observers is taught. If the class being taught is a science class, then no-ID would not be appropriate--and one opens one self up to being forced to include Grimms Fairy tales and Magic books as well. If it is a philosophy class then yes it is okay. The problem with ID being taught in a science class is that the effect is similiar to saying okay class we are learning the multiplication table today. 2 x 2=4 but for those of you that are interested there are some books out there where people think 2 x 2 = aardvark. If science is not something you want to learn, then take a bible class or go to a paraochial school.

Answer 4

Well yes I would oppose that UNLESS religion and philosophy class both have some type of announcement in the start of THEIR courses that says "There are lot of people who say this course is pure BS..feel free to look up X,Y,Z that all say we are wrong".


It just seems unnecessary and a waste of time. If you are in science class why does the science teacher have to stop and say "There are alternative ideas out there but none of which have anything to do with science" that would be like going to English class and the teacher saying "There are other languages in the world so before you accept that this is English I refer you to German,Spanish,Latin,etc to see which you prefer".

If you're in science class...teach the science ideas..if only one idea is considered scientific then you only teach that one...if someone brings up the bible you stop, explain that you don't teach religion in science class just like religion doesn't teach science in church, and then encourage people to humiliate a person comparing apples to oranges.

the definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." the PHYSICAL or MATERIAL world...not the supernatural or immaterial.
What the opposition wants to do is redefine science so they can use spirtual or any type of explination for the universe and whatever we can find in it.

What the opposition does not realize is that if they are successful in redefining science to include non-scientific material it will open the doors for astrology, wicca, etc in the SCIENCE classroom.



Or maybe we should just have a general warning in ALL classes that says
"THIS COURSE WILL HAVE CONTROVERSIAL IDEAS THAT NOT EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD AGREES UPON BUT WILL INCLUDE WHAT IS GENERALL CONSIDERED AS FACT BY THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY INVOLVED WITH THIS SUBJECT"

or maybe because THAT IS THE COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD point of school we can just skip it and assume that not everyone is a non-functional retard

I can see it Now. "Welcome to English..just so you all know some people put X in back of Y instead of enlgish does..I refer you to Spanish" or "Welcome to Geology and I am mandated to tell you that there is a group of people who think the midddle of the Earth is made of swiss cheese so please see books X,Y,Z for further information"........I am so ashamed of the human race right now

Answer 5

I have no problem with "teaching the controversy" in a current events class or a politics or a religion class.

Biology classes should present the best biological knowledge available, evidenced and agreed upon by all or nearly all biologists. This includes evolution by natural selection. Science teachers should not be compelled to offer an alternative to science, any more than English teachers should be forced to provide references in Portuguese.

EDIT:
You're equivocating. There's a big difference between not presenting irrelevant material in a science class and "totally refus[ing] to even allow kids to explore other ideas". No one is actually advocating that children should not be allowed access to alternative concepts of origin, only that such materials are not appropriate in a science class.

EDIT:
I understand your point. I simply disagree with it. Perhaps we're just thinking of this in different terms. I'm considering policy and standards of curriculum. Teachers should not be required, as a matter of policy, to present a list of articles or works that contradict their curriculum. We wouldn't expect chemistry teachers to give students a list of books on alchemy, and we don't require that physics teachers provide resources on natural philosophy. The same holds true for biology teachers.

Answer 6

Comrade Abdul, you are out of line. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has NOT BEEN PROVED!!! It is only a theory. Darwin himself believed that the fossil record would back him up. IT HAS NOT!!!! There are NO intermediary fossils from a progenitor far in the past to one we know now. NONE! NOT A ONE!! You cannot say then that evolution is a fact, it is not.

Most of the so-called intermediary fossils are fakes. Look at National Geographic and what happened in China. Supposedly, an interim fossil was excavated. It was touted by NG. Then it was proved to be false, only bones put together by a farmer.

Intelligent design is a theory. One that I happen to believe far more than evolution. As a theory, it SHOULD be taught next to Darwin's "theory" of evolution. It was thrown out because intelligent design theory is taught by many religious groups and religion must be kept separate from school. Blah blah blah.

I'd like to see science take a part a cell- completely. Then we can watch and see if in all that goo the cell will come together again. We should do this to millions of cells, every once in awhile add more cell-mush to the original cell-mush. I will bet that there will not be one cell that will come together. This would then disprove evolution.

Answer 7

So what you're saying is that it's acceptable to direct children to anyone who puts forth an alternate idea about where life came from, no matter how bizarre or outrageous? Suppose I wrote a book that said life arose from the snot of a gigantic cartoon moose? Hey, it's a theory! Why not tell kids about it?

Educators are supposed to utilize critical thinking, not dice.

EDIT:
If you want to expose your child to other RELIGIONS, or atheism, great. Do it at home, or in a church, or a catechism school.

Science class is for science. Creationism is faith-based nonsense. It doesn't even come close to being science, so it has no place in a science classroom, just as religion has no place in a school. I find it just as ridiculous as the "cartoon MOOSE (not mouse) and I can't understand how kids (let alone adults) don't laugh themselves silly at stories about a talking serpent. I sure did.

Funny how the Christian "high minded" attitude about children's educational needs never seems to make its way into the church mass. When was the last time the priest in your church suggested the congregation pick up a book on adaptation through natural selection? Don't the parishioners deserve to know ALL theories about the origin of life?

EDIT:
Please direct me to the Christian church that says, today we are going to discuss Genesis, but before we do, I urge all of you to investigate human origins as described in atheism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Hinduism, Egyptian, Roman & Greek mythology, Nordic mythology, Native South or North American paganism, Zoroastrianism, Rastafarianism, or (gasp) Scientology, just so you can decide for yourselves what's true.

Oh wait, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SIN!

Please give me just a small break! Christians have the ultimate double standard. They always want religion to have equal time with science, as long as it's THEIR RELIGION.

Answer 8

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

What about teaching it in school? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

As Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

Answer 9

The closest there is to a controversy regarding evolution is the disagreement between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould - Gould believed that evolution happens in sudden bursts in between long periods of stasis, while Dawkins is of the opinion that evolution is a slow, gradual, continuous process. I have no problem with school kids being taught both sides of this argument.

Answer 10

What controversy? ID was laughed out of court.

======================================

EDIT: What the Christian right is trying to do with this 'teach the controversy' nonsense is create controversy where there is none and do an end run on the process by which material makes it into school text books. So I see no compelling reason to reward that type of nonsense.

Personally, I would have no problem with a world cultures curriculum that exposes kids to various ideas and thoughts. But in the realm of science, there is no special status that should be afforded to religious opinions merely because they are religious opinions. So unless there is some actual science behind them, they have no place in the curriculum, even as a mention as an 'alternative' because that will only serve to cast undeserved doubt on an otherwise valid and verified theory.

Answer 11

I think that if people (including kids) want to rely on faith instead of logic, we should let them. Some people don't want to believe in any science (Christian Scientists) and that is their right. I personally think that someone could (like many, many many scientists in history and today) believe in God and creation but realize that evolution is part of God's plan, and that the bible is largely an allegory.

Anyone who reads Darwin (or Newton, for that matter) will see two scientists, an agnostic and a Christian, who believe in science AND God, who hold spiritual beliefs but who seek to explain God's workings on Earth through logic. Unless you're a fundamentalist who believes the bible literally, logic and faith should not be mutually exclusive.

So yes, perhaps in science class we should say: "If you don't believe in logical reasoning about causes then you probably won't do too well in this class; but you could interpret your experience based on reading and (faithfully) obeying the words of someone else's book, which many people (fundamentalists) do, and you wouldn't have to worry about pesky reason getting in the way." then the teacher should add: "but don't expect me to grade you based on the spotless innocence of your faith; we're doing cold, hard science in here, and your grade will be calculated on the basis of flawed, feeble, uninspired, mundane human logic, just like everyone else's."

ps. Mark S,
If you believe in Newton's centripetal force (theory of gravity) you should also believe in evolution. The body of evidence for each is of about the same magnitude. Darwin actually says in his book (for those few who care to actually read the guy before trashing his theory) that the lack of transitional fossils is a PROOF of his theory! That sounds like the opposite of what you said...but I guess you're too busy to read; and who thinks anymore anyways?