Should schools teach students how to think critically when it comes to evolution?

Question

I'm not talking about intelligent design or anything religious in nature. Should students be aware that there may be scientific criticisms in the theory of evolution? Should they only be taught that everything about evolution is 100% accurate?

Remember that I am not referring to ID, but critiques that are scientific in nature.

Funny because some atheists think that evolution is 100% accurate. Okay 95% accurate better?

Tuyet, I specifically said to leave ID and religion out of it. Not every critique of evolution is religious in nature. Religion is debated among the religious.

I also would like to know is if a student has a question or doubts about evolution how should his doubts be addressed? By telling him that he doesn't understand it? Dismiss his questions and just count him off as being another fundie kid?

Oh please, so the the doubts made by a student has to have religious overtones? You said it, not me. I can tell that I am correct, just assume that any objection made by a student is religious in nature.

Edit:
"It pretends that somehow there are evolution critics out there doing hard science or any science at all for the matter"

So you just disproved your claim:

"And you might want to check my post again because I was the one who pointed out that scientists are the ones critically reviewing it over and over"

So the scientist that you are refering to are not doing hard science, or any science at all "for that matter".

What is it? Is it one thing or the other?

"And if it's a religious objection tell them politely 'we're not learning religion here'. "

For the teacher to imply that the student's objection is religious in nature is framing the students question so that the teacher can feel justified in not answering it.

A responsible teacher wouldn't respond with a "we are not learning religion here" to every question that they cannot answer.

If you don't want ID taught in science class that is fine, I can understand that. However If a student has a question about evolution, a teacher shouldn't just automatically assume that the question is religious in nature. A teacher should be wise enough to say that they don't know the answers and that scientist are looking for these answers. A teacher should also commend the student for noticing these disparities. They certainly shouldn't plop a "Fundie" dunce cap on the student's head and send him to the back of the class.

Skalite:

So you are saying that a highschool student is not capable of noticing disparities in evolution? That only a student in a university is capable of it. Gee I bet that a lot students and parents who have kids who excel in science may disagree with your sentiments.

Answer 1

Students should be taught to think critically of all subjects and ideas. They should also be made aware of all theories or beliefs. That is the only way to make a fully informed conclusion.

Answer 2

When I studied biology the theory of evolution was taught very well. And so was the theory of gravity. Critical thinking was an important part off all of my education, which is one of the many reasons I believe, firmly in the TOE.

We can observe evolution taking place. Go to talkorigins.com, or any other of the countless websites that do their best to be heard above all the creationist noise, and have a look. It's all there. Even the transitional fossils that apparently don't exist. They're there. Add to that the common chunks of junk DNA common to species predicted to have common ancestors, and much more, and it's clear we can observe evolution taking place.

We can observe gravity taking place. Are you pulled towards the surface below you? Excellent.

We have a theory called The Theory of Evolution to explain what we observe. It's constantly being refined and is now extremely mature and well tested. There is no smoking gun that renders it all meaningless, and I've yet to see proof that there is a conspiracy to keep anything secret that would nullify it.

We have several much less robust theories to explain gravity. We're not even close, really, as any scientist will tell you.

But the religious side only care to pick apart Evolutionary theory, despite it's being one of the most well-tested, useful scientific frameworks extant. They would have a much easier time picking apart the various theories of gravity, if their motivation were simply to ensure that the truth is out there.

But they don't. Why not? Because gravity and whatever explains it doesn't have much bearing on their religious beliefs.

I can't understand why they care. Would it be cynical to think that they fear losing legions of happy tithers who lose their faith when they realize that yet another chunk of the bible is, at best, simply allegorical, and in the worst case simply written by primitive people who had no idea about modern science?

Answer 3

I love this line of thought. It pretends that somehow there are evolution critics out there doing hard science or any science at all for the matter. It's just so hilarious.

The only way critics of evolution even know that there are unanswered questions about evolution is that scientists are the ones talking about them and looking for the answers. And by scientists I mean the men and women doing the hard science none of whom are critics.

The critics love to pretend first that there is some group called 'evolutionists' and that these evolutionists are claiming they have all the answers and closed the book 100 years ago when Darwin died. And they like to set themselves up as some defender of truth demanding the book be reopened.

And of course these mighty defenders of 'truth' when handed the unanswered question on a silver platter by scientists toss it back and wail that it doesn't prove everything including why my finger is up my nose therefore it must have been a god for which no evidence is necessary.

Admit it DesiDani, that pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

How about we teach kids to think critically about everything? Teach them the value of a healthy amount of skepticism and to question everything? Ruh Roh - now that's scary for you isn't it?

How ya gonna keep em in the churches if you teach them that? How do you answer, "Why do you say evolution theory is wrong when it has over 100 years of scientific evidence but I should believe in god for which there is no evidence at all."

===
"Tuyet, I specifically said to leave ID and religion out of it. "
You can say it all you like. You only get to ask the question you don't get to define the answer too. Give you theists an inch and you think you're a ruler.

--
"Not every critique of evolution is religious in nature. Religion is debated among the religious."
I would say no critiques of evolution are religious because that implies a 'critical review.' And you might want to check my post again because I was the one who pointed out that scientists are the ones critically reviewing it over and over. And every open question comes from these scientists not religion. Religion and theists only pretend the questions are theirs.
--
"I also would like to know is if a student has a question or doubts about evolution how should his doubts be addressed?"
Depends on these mysterious doubts you bring up. I love how everything you write has the religious undertone that you want no one else to speak of. If the subject were math and a kid had a religious objection to 2+2 equally 4 what would you suggest?
--
"By telling him that he doesn't understand it? Dismiss his questions and just count him off as being another fundie kid?"

Eye roll. Hyperbolic drama queen. If the child has an honest question you answer it. Do you honestly think that this is what happens if someone asks a question?

And if it's a religious objection tell them politely 'we're not learning religion here'. Why is it so offensive to theists to think that a subject taught in school should be be solely that subject?

Answer 4

Critical thinking is vital to science. They should also be able to evaluate the critiques of Darwinism. The big key is the ability to recognize evidence. The criticisms of Darwin to this point are usually based on a flawed premise such a irreducible complexity. There have been criticisms of very specific areas of evolution that have turned out to be correct and were then incorporated into the most current version. Make no mistake, evolution is fact. The details may need some refining here and there but that does not change the overall premise.

Answer 5

In actuality if you pick up most high school textbooks on the subject--that is exactly what is done, is to teach students to think critically. The text my daughter had--teaches the fossil record--FACT--teaches survival of the fittest_FACT--teaches that mutations occur--and this is put together in a self consistent framework that agrees with the observations--but it does not present evolution as FACT--it presents it as a scientific theory which explains observations. It is given some credence because this theory has been examined for over a hundred years now--and no one has ever come up with facts that dispute the basic theory. So no-the schools are doing exactly what they should be.

Answer 6

Yes and no.

Singling out the ToE for 'critical thinking' implies that it is somehow 'more' unstable than other scientific theories. But the general point that science is about testable, observable reality instead of commandments from on high is a good idea.

However, up to the high school level, schools typically don't go into the depth required to make accurate critical judgements of the ToE.

Answer 7

The problem is, many people think there is scientific evidence against evolution that isn't there. If there was ANY evidence to falsify evolution it would cease to be a theory. But there isn't any. And the evidence that is known that supports the theory is what is taught. There are questions that the theory still doesn't address, but what is stated in the theory is supported by evidence, and if there was evidence to contradict this, it would either falsify the theory, or the theory would change to reflect this.

Answer 8

in line with an above poster: organic decision is a idea, a lifeless ringer for gravity is a idea. 'idea' is the most well known element of endorsement that could accept to a concept in technology, and this is truly diverse from what you or i'd propose even as speaking about 'theories'. this is an substantial enormous difference that many times receives muddled contained in the clicking. At any cost, you *might want to* disprove organic decision, while you *might want to no longer* disprove smart layout/creationism/etc. If some thing isn't empirically falsifiable, this is philosophy, no longer technology. in line with the initially posed question: i imagine that evolution, and all technology and math, ought to earnings a lot before than later. we do not wait to reveal grammar regulations till late extreme college; we shouldn't wait to reveal stronger mathematical techniques or standard clinical insights, both. evaluate GH Hardy, the famed British mathematician who stronger the Hardy-Weinberg equations for inhabitants genetics (p+q=a million and p^2+2pq+q^2=a million). He change into ashamed to post those standard genetic formulation because he considered them so obtrusive. To the biologists on the time, although, it change into some distance from obtrusive. Our scientists did not (and nonetheless do not) comprehend sufficient math, and our voters don't realize just about sufficient math or technology. Early practise in math and technology might want to be the finished step contained in the right route.

Answer 9

Augh. To be taught to think critically about biology, they have to be taught biology first. The place for academic controversy is, and always has been, the University, not the high school. High school is the place to give them a basic grounding on Biological science, which includes teaching them about evolution. When they know enough, and it requires a LOT of schooling first, then and only then should you bring up supposed "controversies", when they have a sufficent knowledge base to evaluate the situation.

Answer 10

Darwin's theories are about "natural selection", not evolution. This is what should be taught. Everything about evolution is not correct! The only way to prove it is to find the "missing link" which hasn't been done yet. Students should be able to make up their own minds about this through studying different points of view.