How to teach evolution in american schools; an NPR debate

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

First and foremost, I think they're set with a false dichotomy, between something they care very deeply about, a doctrine of their religious belief, and something they don't care about at all, some scientific theory of how life came to be. I speak from personal experience as a "converted" (I don't know if that's the proper term) Creationist who could still be considered a Christian, at least in American Protestant terms; the best way is to show that that dichotomy is false.

People don't give up their worldviews easily. No one gives up a worldview easily or it probably wasn't a worldview they cared about very much. A worldview isn't a worldview because it proves one thing, but because it proves everything. G.K. Chesterton put it pretty well;

It is very hard for a man to defend anything of which he is entirely convinced. It is comparatively easy when he is only partially convinced. He is partially convinced because he has found this or that proof of the thing, and he can expound it. But a man is not really convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it. He is only really convinced when he finds that everything proves it.

So, first off, the present state of affairs is we're asking them to take this thing that, for them, proves everything (I'll try not to sound too postmodern when I say that ), for a theory that just proves something. Scientifically, it makes perfect sense. But in the economics of that person's worldview, it's an unfair trade. In their mind, they're trading a system of values that works for them in exchange for some vague scientific theory.

If there is one man I think can really hit Creationism in the gut, it's Francis Collins. I don't know about other people, but for me, he just had to exist. He's not just a good Christian, he's a great one, and he's not just a good geneticist, he's a great geneticist. But when the same man presenting evidence for evolution is telling people to give up their gods, how do you think they're going to react? And how the hell could you blame them?

EDIT: Is it just me or does Francis Collins look AND sound like Ned Flanders

[Sebbie]

I think you make a good point when you say that to many Creationists, evolutionary theory is just a "vague scientific idea." It seems that many people hear of evolution not in an academic setting, where they're likely to learn about its beauty and simplicity in proper detail, but only because of the media hype surrounding the controversy. I'm very curious how many people who reject evolution actually understand what it says. I mean, when I first learned what evolution was, it seemed like a tautology; the reason it's such a cool theory is because once you hear it, it's so obviously simple. But because of this artificial conflict between evolution and Creationism, I think far too few people learn about evolution as anything more than some vague scientific theory. It's a pity, really.

I think there's also too much mixing of philosophy and science in this issue. I mean, you talk about "evolution" as a worldview almost from a philosophical perspective, whereas it's a purely scientific paradigm. Perhaps part of the issue is that people are more personally interested in philosophical worldviews, and the picture of evolution and Creationism as "competing theories" somehow makes them sound like they offer the same kind of worldview, which they clearly don't. One is purely scientific, the other is philosophical/theological. It doesn't really make sense to compare them.

Your quote by G.K. Chesterton highlights an important point: one should make sure to never be entirely convinced of anything. So many of the problems in the world happen because people believe so strongly in something that they're incapable of questioning it.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

I didn't mean to talk about evolution as a worldview. Luckily, the theory of evolution has a secondary effect on our worldview, though it certainly hasn't always been that way, to the detriment of many.

I know for a fact most high schools in America don't teach evolution (60%) and about 15-16% teach Creationism, including the one I attended.

I don't think it's a bad thing to be entirely convinced of something. Chesterton points in example how you might ask someone how they prefer civilization over barbarism. The most likely response would be to just point out the aspects of civilization surrounding them; "that book, and that chair, and that ironing board, and my television!" You *could* eventually make a decent argument for it, but it would be a lot harder than, say, comparing Marxism with free market ideology. But that's a different talk.

I think models like BioLogos would be the most effective in countering anti-evolutionary movements.

[avwolf]

It certainly doesn't help when the quality of what education there is on evolution is terrible. I know more about evolution from research I've done on it than from anything remotely resembling classwork. When I was in high school, we were taught Lamarckism, honest-to-God, even though that'd been known to be laughably wrong for more than twenty years before I was born. When students are taught things which are clearly false, is it any surprise that they might seek out unfalsifiable explanations?

I'm fixated on the concept that the small things inform the big things. By focusing on easy to demonstrate adaptations ("microevolution"), education could bridge into the development of species ("macroevolution") as an obvious extension of the same principles. Instead, the origin of life and adaptation are taught as practically independent phenomena, with no real connection between the two. We'll believe that moth populations change their "normal" color from the industrial revolution making dark colored moths survive better, but the jump from that to "men came from monkeys" is poorly explained and therefore seems more unbelievable. We aren't taught that those are the same concept, one wrote small and the other wrote large, they're taught as though they were two completely different things.

As an aside, Sebbie, I'm with Mea on the "entirely convinced" thing. You, after all, are entirely convinced that science properly explains the world, and does so beautifully and as near to completely as we are able to approach, with that completeness increasing every moment of every day. It's much like the line from Fern Gully, "Only fools are positive," which made my mother furious because it's such a stupid thing to say. We can be positive -- entirely convinced -- by plenty of completely reasonable things. Being entirely convinced of something doesn't mean you aren't willing to entertain criticism of it: I've heard some rather interesting defenses of barbarism as an alternative to civilization. Have they ever managed to shake my conviction of the superiority of civilization? Not really, but I wouldn't just shout "You're an idiot!" at people disagreeing with me. If someone were to come to me with proof positive of ghosts tomorrow, I'd expect science to be able to explain that, because I, too, am "entirely convinced" that science, given time, will explain the operation of this entire physical universe.

For the record, even though I'm sure most folks in the thread know this, I'm a religious man, and a creationist for certain definitions of the term -- I believe God created the heavens and the Earth, though my position is that God used naturalistic processes to accomplish this creation. I am in agreement with the Catholic Church that there is no inconsistency between believing that God exists and is the Creator, and that evolutionary models are correct, or as correct as science can currently produce.

[TheMouse]

For the record, even though I'm sure most folks in the thread know this, I'm a religious man, and a creationist for certain definitions of the term -- I believe God created the heavens and the Earth, though my position is that God used naturalistic processes to accomplish this creation. I am in agreement with the Catholic Church that there is no inconsistency between believing that God exists and is the Creator, and that evolutionary models are correct, or as correct as science can currently produce.

Science explains how the universe works.
Religion explains why.

Does that about sum it up?

[avwolf]

Science explains how the universe works.
Religion explains why.

Does that about sum it up?

Yeah, that's a fairly succinct explanation.

One of the largest issues, as I see it and as both Mea and Sebbie mention earlier, is that many people conflate both of them as doing both of those things. If you believe that your Religion explains how the universe works and you believe (rightly or wrongly) that your opponent believes that Science explains why the universe is, then you end up in situations like the one we're in, where science isn't taught. (The converse happens too, but to my knowledge only causes a lot of arguments.)

[Sebbie]

As an aside, Sebbie, I'm with Mea on the "entirely convinced" thing. You, after all, are entirely convinced that science properly explains the world, and does so beautifully and as near to completely as we are able to approach, with that completeness increasing every moment of every day.

Oh, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "entirely convinced." I suppose I interpreted it as meaning "believing so strongly to the point of being unwilling to entertain the thought that it might be wrong," which I do indeed think is bad. If you simply mean "very strongly convinced," then sure, being very strongly convinced of something can be fine. I would say I'm very, very strongly convinced that science is the only approach we currently have for obtaining "truth" about the universe (for a good, utilitarian notion of the word "truth"), but it's true that from time to time I wonder whether the preeminence of the scientific method is preventing an even better way of obtaining truth from being developed.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

I'd say the statement that science will eventually explain the whole physical universe would be a matter of religious faith in human progress.

avwolf: if it's not too personal, what denomination of religion?

[Sebbie]

I'd say the statement that science will eventually explain the whole physical universe would be a matter of religious faith in human progress.

That's why any good scientist will never make that statement (in seriousness, anyway) Many scientists will say that they hope science will one day explain the entire universe, but some (myself included) will not make the statement that it will.

Science explains how the universe works.
Religion explains why.

Does that about sum it up?

I think the better statement is that religion provides reasons why; I wouldn't consider them explanations, since they're not backed up by any sort of evidence Then again, far be it for someone like me to tell religion what it's trying to do.

[avwolf]

avwolf: if it's not too personal, what denomination of religion?

I'm a Lutheran, of the Missouri Synod variety. My fiancee is United Methodist, so we're currently trying to decide who wants to convert.

As an aside, Sebbie, I'm with Mea on the "entirely convinced" thing. You, after all, are entirely convinced that science properly explains the world, and does so beautifully and as near to completely as we are able to approach, with that completeness increasing every moment of every day.

Oh, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "entirely convinced." I suppose I interpreted it as meaning "believing so strongly to the point of being unwilling to entertain the thought that it might be wrong," which I do indeed think is bad. If you simply mean "very strongly convinced," then sure, being very strongly convinced of something can be fine. I would say I'm very, very strongly convinced that science is the only approach we currently have for obtaining "truth" about the universe (for a good, utilitarian notion of the word "truth"), but it's true that from time to time I wonder whether the preeminence of the scientific method is preventing an even better way of obtaining truth from being developed.

That's...a tricky question, actually. I'd say that being "entirely convinced" does still leave the possibility of being persuaded, but the bar for that would be set mighty high. While not impossible to be dissuaded from the conviction in theory, it would be effectively impossible in practice (at least in the course of a single debate) -- the evidence requirements necessary to get past the convictions based on your own experiences and evidence that you've accumulated would be such that no one person or issue could sway you from your beliefs (for a generic "you"). So it might take years for someone to become unconvinced of something for which they were entirely convinced before, but I believe it's possible.

[TheMouse]

avwolf: if it's not too personal, what denomination of religion?

I'm a Lutheran, of the Missouri Synod variety. My fiancee is United Methodist, so we're currently trying to decide who wants to convert.

I'm not sure how on topic this is but... why does one of you need to convert?

[avwolf]

avwolf: if it's not too personal, what denomination of religion?

I'm a Lutheran, of the Missouri Synod variety. My fiancee is United Methodist, so we're currently trying to decide who wants to convert.

I'm not sure how on topic this is but... why does one of you need to convert?

We don't want to be in a situation where each of us goes to different churches. She actually has that situation in her family and doesn't like it, I just think it's a bad idea without the experiential evidence. Fortunately the denominational differences are fairly minor.

[Wynni]

Now I'm wondering just how lucky a duck I was......Here I am, in the backwoods oF Alabama- smackdab HEART of the bleeping bible belt, and my high school got evolution right - we even watched "Inherit the Wind" at school. Perhaps I would not have been as interested in biology had my school dumbed down the science course.

Is evolution really that much of a rarity in the high school setting?
Lamarkian evolution was covered, but it was taught as a historical stepping stone, not as a current idea.

[MrFlyingAmoeba]

Now I'm wondering just how lucky a duck I was......Here I am, in the backwoods oF Alabama- smackdab HEART of the bleeping bible belt, and my high school got evolution right - we even watched "Inherit the Wind" at school. Perhaps I would not have been as interested in biology had my school dumbed down the science course.

Is evolution really that much of a rarity in the high school setting?
Lamarkian evolution was covered, but it was taught as a historical stepping stone, not as a current idea.

Evolution is taught in my high school, (I live in Houston) although you do have to take AP Biology (AP being a Advanced Placement/College level course) to do so.

[Kilroywuzheere]

Now I'm wondering just how lucky a duck I was......Here I am, in the backwoods oF Alabama- smackdab HEART of the bleeping bible belt, and my high school got evolution right - we even watched "Inherit the Wind" at school. Perhaps I would not have been as interested in biology had my school dumbed down the science course.

Is evolution really that much of a rarity in the high school setting?
Lamarkian evolution was covered, but it was taught as a historical stepping stone, not as a current idea.

I was educated in Kansas. We got evolution taught to us right. And the next day we got handouts on "Intelligent design" which the teacher stated she was giving us only because she was required to by law and that it wasn't science. We then moved on to the next topic.

If my state can get it right, it baffles me that other places can get it wrong.