How to teach evolution in american schools; an NPR debate

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

Here's the debate. I rather enjoyed this overall.

what this thread is not about:
"I HATE CREATIONISTS. CREATIONISM IS SILLY LIKE WOW WHY IS THIS EVEN BEING TALKED ABOUT."
^These threads exist all over the internet, they have not made any creationists drop their beliefs to my knowledge. It is wholly useless to the conversation, if your intention is to make any, any, any, any any variation, HOWEVER eloquent, funny, or polite of the above statement, please just don't comment. I get it, we get it.
P.S. I'm not a creationist.
what this thread is about:
Education in spite of political changing controversy. And whether we like it or not, if the issue goes unaddressed, or we act as if it's disgraceful to address it, it'll get worse.
it won't fix itself.

[Wynni]

The problem is simple: Science - the class in which Evolution is taught- is a class based on FACTS. While I believe God guided the process that lead to humans, I can't teach that in class, my educational ETHICS forbid it. As a Science teacher, it is my DUTY to teach what can be proven, and supported with facts.

Quite frankly, I'm past ready for someone to present factual evidence to support creationism. Most of what I have seen are attempts to poke holes in evolution, without any explanation for what evolutionary evidence we have.

and my apologies, but I do not have 51 minutes to spend listening to the whole program, I skipped about mightily.
I have papers to grade ;P

[TheMouse]

And Wynni sums things up neatly. Some schools even have classes where teaching creationism would be appropriate, but a science class is not it. Religious topics most certainly should not be taught by scientists, nor the reverse. It's not that one cannot be a religious scientist, nor the flipside of that coin. Wynni demonstrates that such creatures do exist. But the teaching of the two different subjects is so radically different that to teach both, a person would surely have to be mad.

Our leaders are rarely teachers. Even more rarely scientists. And far too often, devout, if poorly versed, men. Something must be done, but damn if I know what to do.

[Ryusen]

But the teaching of the two different subjects is so radically different that to teach both, a person would surely have to be mad.

Not necessarily. I was taking a course in Tissue Engineering during college, and it was taught by a man with a doctorate in the subject. The topic of Ethics and Morals came up during one of our lectures, and he let slip that he was a practicing Roman Catholic. We had a fantastic discussion of the religious view on his field (it would stand to reason that many Catholics would be against stem cell research, as well as many of the other questionable practices of this field of study), and it could not have happened if this scientist were not also a believer. He is many things, but mad is not one of them.

There is no problem with scientists being religious, nor the reverse. Here in The South, I'd say it's more common than not. My professors were wise enough to know when, and when was not, appropriate for those kinds of discussions (come to think about it, I can't think of any time, outside of ethics and morals, that these topics were brought up). I can count on one hand the number of times we had discussions involving religion in my courses, but they were always well-mediated and respectful of all parties. They were, as would be expected of mature adults, respectful, honest discussions. The breakdown of communication in situations like this says more about the participants than it does about the material being discussed.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

There is, if I recall, a course on Science and Religion in quite a few universities, giving their very interesting--and, throughout most of our known human story, irrevocably intertwined--history with eachother

[FuhrerVonZephyr]

It has a tremendous amount of evidence in favor of it. It's as close to fact as an idea can get, and should be taught as such. Case closed.

[Sable Dove]

It has a tremendous amount of evidence in favor of it. It's as close to fact as an idea can get, and should be taught as such. Case closed.

You know, not having a clear subject is not very good. You should probably hold off on calling something "it" until you establish what "it" is. I could just as easily assume you mean evolution as I could that you mean creationism.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

It has a tremendous amount of evidence in favor of it. It's as close to fact as an idea can get, and should be taught as such. Case closed.

Hey, let's try this again.

"I HATE CREATIONISTS. CREATIONISM IS SILLY LIKE WOW WHY IS THIS EVEN BEING TALKED ABOUT."
^These threads exist all over the internet, they have not made any creationists drop their beliefs to my knowledge. It is wholly useless to the conversation, if your intention is to make any, any, any, any any variation, HOWEVER eloquent, funny, or polite of the above statement, please just don't comment. I get it, we get it.

[Sebbie]

MeaCulpa, there's a reason this thread never really took off: if you prevent people from talking badly about Creationism, then you're leaving them nothing to say, because there's nothing good to say about Creationism. There's really nothing for intelligent people (like those on this forum) to say on this topic.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

MeaCulpa, there's a reason this thread never really took off: if you prevent people from talking badly about Creationism, then you're leaving them nothing to say, because there's nothing good to say about Creationism. There's really nothing for intelligent people (like those on this forum) to say on this topic.

Wait, so intelligent people can't think of anything other than derision for something they don't like?

Are we using the same definition of intelligent people

[Insomniac]

MeaCulpa, there's a reason this thread never really took off: if you prevent people from talking badly about Creationism, then you're leaving them nothing to say, because there's nothing good to say about Creationism. There's really nothing for intelligent people (like those on this forum) to say on this topic.

Wait, so intelligent people can't think of anything other than derision for something they don't like?

Are we using the same definition of intelligent people

I think what he's trying to say is...no, I can't say that. He's smarter than me. What I'll say though is, I know too much about the evidence proving evolution to say anything else.

[avengedplatypus]

Best I can think of is this...
separation of church and state
if the school is funded by the state, please dont force the church on it...
the same works vice versa.

[Sebbie]

MeaCulpa, there's a reason this thread never really took off: if you prevent people from talking badly about Creationism, then you're leaving them nothing to say, because there's nothing good to say about Creationism. There's really nothing for intelligent people (like those on this forum) to say on this topic.

Wait, so intelligent people can't think of anything other than derision for something they don't like?

Are we using the same definition of intelligent people

The point isn't that intelligent people don't like Creationism; the point is that intelligent people, by virtue of being intelligent, understand that in order for an idea or theory to be accepted, it must (a) be falsifiable (so that it is, by definition, a scientific theory), and (b) provide ample evidence supporting its claims. Evolutionary theory goes above and beyond satisfying both of these requirements; creationist theories at best sort of try to touch upon (a), but completely ignore (b). Therefore, they are not worthy of scientific consideration.

Mea, let me put it this way. Say I started a thread here about someone's claim that Santa Claus exists, and that this needs to be taught to people. This person has not provided any evidence of his claims, but wants to spread the word and make people aware of an alternative theory of how the presents get put under the Christmas tree. After all, there's misinformation in the standard accepted "it's-the-parents-that-do-it" story: how do the parents get down the chimney without hurting themselves? If there are no reindeer, who eats the carrots that the kids leave out? When I start this thread, I also make sure to inform everyone that I want no one to say anything bad about this theory, and that I only want civilized discussion. Now, I ask you: is this Santa Claus present theory something we could actually have an intelligent, civilized discussion about, without saying anything bad about it? I would think not.

It's much the same case here. To put it bluntly, not all ideas are worth consideration or worthy of respect. Creationism (in all but its vaguest incarnations) is silly idea, a waste of time, and a threat to the intellect of this country.

In particular, I'd also like to point out the fact that in scientific circles, a requirement of scientists is to try to disprove new theories. When someone suggests a new idea, the response isn't just "cool, what can we do with it," but "OK, let's try to disprove it." This is why scientific theories are so sturdy: they are attacked when they are first suggested, and only the ones that survive an onslaught of criticism and experiment are able to survive. That's how we tell whether a theory is true or not. So, by asking us to not say anything bad about Creationism, you're undermining the scientific process: a good scientific theory stands out on its own, without needing people to protect it from criticism.

Anyway, out of consideration for your request, I'll make this my first and last anti-Creationist post in this thread (unless you desire otherwise), but please be aware that there are as many good things to say about Creationism as there are good things to say about the Santa Claus present theory.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

MeaCulpa, there's a reason this thread never really took off: if you prevent people from talking badly about Creationism, then you're leaving them nothing to say, because there's nothing good to say about Creationism. There's really nothing for intelligent people (like those on this forum) to say on this topic.

Wait, so intelligent people can't think of anything other than derision for something they don't like?

Are we using the same definition of intelligent people

The point isn't that intelligent people don't like Creationism; the point is that intelligent people, by virtue of being intelligent, understand that in order for an idea or theory to be accepted, it must (a) be falsifiable (so that it is, by definition, a scientific theory), and (b) provide ample evidence supporting its claims. Evolutionary theory goes above and beyond satisfying both of these requirements; creationist theories at best sort of try to touch upon (a), but completely ignore (b). Therefore, they are not worthy of scientific consideration.

Mea, let me put it this way. Say I started a thread here about someone's claim that Santa Claus exists, and that this needs to be taught to people. This person has not provided any evidence of his claims, but wants to spread the word and make people aware of an alternative theory of how the presents get put under the Christmas tree. After all, there's misinformation in the standard accepted "it's-the-parents-that-do-it" story: how do the parents get down the chimney without hurting themselves? If there are no reindeer, who eats the carrots that the kids leave out? When I start this thread, I also make sure to inform everyone that I want no one to say anything bad about this theory, and that I only want civilized discussion. Now, I ask you: is this Santa Claus present theory something we could actually have an intelligent, civilized discussion about, without saying anything bad about it? I would think not.

It's much the same case here. To put it bluntly, not all ideas are worth consideration or worthy of respect. Creationism (in all but its vaguest incarnations) is silly idea, a waste of time, and a threat to the intellect of this country.

In particular, I'd also like to point out the fact that in scientific circles, a requirement of scientists is to try to disprove new theories. When someone suggests a new idea, the response isn't just "cool, what can we do with it," but "OK, let's try to disprove it." This is why scientific theories are so sturdy: they are attacked when they are first suggested, and only the ones that survive an onslaught of criticism and experiment are able to survive. That's how we tell whether a theory is true or not. So, by asking us to not say anything bad about Creationism, you're undermining the scientific process: a good scientific theory stands out on its own, without needing people to protect it from criticism.

Anyway, out of consideration for your request, I'll make this my first and last anti-Creationist post in this thread (unless you desire otherwise), but please be aware that there are as many good things to say about Creationism as there are good things to say about the Santa Claus present theory.

Ok, I think you misunderstood my intended purpose. First, I've heard the arguments against Creationism and have already been convinced by them, so I'm not sure why you think they need to be reiterated.

I'm not trying to talk about the merits of creationism, I'm trying to talk about how, politically, the issue remains and isn't going to go away no matter how many "Creationism is really, really dumb" posts are made, however well defended.

There is a disconnect of mistrust and that mistrust probably has more sources than "My Bible says you're stupid;" it's a cultural issue of mistrust. As someone who grew up in a Creationist house and in a school that taught it, even though I know it's not correct now, I have a couple ideas as to why people--sometimes very intelligent and otherwise open-minded people--believe in it. By open-minded and intelligent, I mean my mom, who made one B in her lifetime and is currently considered one of the best NNPs in the state. And no amount of "Santa Claus" jokes will ever shed light on that or progress the dialogue in any meaningful way, nor will putting fingers in our ears and saying it can't progress.

[Sebbie]

Then yes, I guess I did misunderstand your purpose. I thought you were irritated that I couldn't find anything other than bad things to say about Creationism.

To get the discussion going in the direction you wanted it to, can you explain what your ideas are as to why people believe in it?