Raw Story: Four states considering laws that challenge the teaching of evolution

[DjTj]

I don't understand why they can't introduce both sides. I mean what's wrong with a teacher saying:

"Some people believe that the earth started with a big bang and evelution of humans started later on and

Some people believe in creationism in that God created the earth."

Is it because it will offend someone? Wording it correctly is not pushing your beliefs on someone, but introducing two possible explainations.

Some people believe the moon landing was staged. Some people believe the government crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center. Some people believe that we are all living in a computer simulation and are enslaved by machines. How many competing theories do we need to present to our children?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Because creationism is not a "scientific theory" and does not use scientific principles to reach its conclusions. Teaching creationism as a viable theory in a science class directly undermines students' understanding of how to apply actual scientific principles. It would be like teaching "ain't" as an alternative theory of writing in English class, or "2+2 equals banana" as an alternative method of calculation in a math class, or teaching "pyramid power" as an alternative energy theory in physics class.

Religion is a matter of personal belief, but it isn't science. The fact that there is a blatant religious agenda behind pushing "creation science" is just the icing on the cake

Does the article stipulate that the bills are advocating teaching creationism in Science Courses? I confess, I did not read that. If that is the case, then I can see why it might be problematic. However, if that is not the case, then I still do not see the issue. There is no law that says you can only teach Scientific Theory.

[greenspandan]

I don't understand why they can't introduce both sides. I mean what's wrong with a teacher saying:

"Some people believe that the earth started with a big bang and evelution of humans started later on and

Some people believe in creationism in that God created the earth."

Is it because it will offend someone? Wording it correctly is not pushing your beliefs on someone, but introducing two possible explainations.

it's not because anyone would be offended.

framing religious belief and scientific conclusions as being in opposition to each other shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is. science is not a body of accepted facts. it is a process of creating a functional description of the world through falsifiable mechanisms of testing, observation, deduction, etc. The reason Creationism (or Intelligent Design if you like) has no place in a science classroom is because it cannot be subjected to any sort of scientific process or inquiry. it's not scientific. it's a belief. there's nothing of value science can say about it, since science is based on the idea of falsifiability. religious theories belongs in a class where metaphysics is an appropriate part of the curriculum.

Bringing up Intelligent Design in a science classroom is like bringing up Hamlet in a course on auto mechanics. It doesn't mean the teacher hates Shakespeare just because they'd rather be talking about differentials and mufflers and timing belts.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Evolution has already become widely accepted. Why bother teaching theories that is not supported by the facts, when we have a theory that is supported by the facts?

Should we teach Aristotelian physics when we know that it makes incorrect predictions for how the world works while Newtownian (and relativistic) physics makes correction predictions? Should we teach our kids that Pluto is a planet even though we've now classified it as no longer a planet (since it is smaller than several other asteroids orbiting the sun). Should we teach that the earth is flat and that it is the center of the universe?

There is a limited amount of time to teach science in schools. Shouldn't we spend it teaching kids the theories that are widely accepted, instead of the theories that have been rejected?

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 02:56 PM ----------

How does evolution directly contradict the Bible? Early Jews and Christians did not have a literal understanding of Genesis, and the young earth timeline is relatively new creation.

I don't see a conflict between the Bible and the theory of evolution. Francis Collins has answered this question many times: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/The-Evidence-for-Belief-An-Interview-with-Francis-Collins.aspx

If this approach had been taken when creationism was the accepted theory, and lets not kid ourselves here, it was an accepted theory at one point, then Science or Evolution would have never been taught.

Further, it is not my place to tell parents or anybody else, how to use their time. That has to be evaluated by local society and then moved upon. If a State elects to use their time in this way, that is their decision. It is not for me to tell Colorado or Oklahoma or Montana or wherever else, how they should be spending their tax dollars. They have no business telling me how to do it and I, in turn, should not be making those decisions for them.

[Predicto]

it's not because anyone would be offended.

framing religious belief and scientific conclusions as being in opposition to each other shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is. science is not a body of accepted facts. it is a process of creating a functional description of the world through falsifiable mechanisms of testing, observation, deduction, etc. The reason Creationism (or Intelligent Design if you like) has no place in a science classroom is because it cannot be subjected to any sort of scientific process or inquiry. it's not scientific. it's a belief. there's nothing of value science can say about it, since science is based on the idea of falsifiability. religious theories belongs in a class where metaphysics is an appropriate part of the curriculum.

Bringing up Intelligent Design in a science classroom is like bringing up Hamlet in a course on auto mechanics. It doesn't mean the teacher hates Shakespeare just because they'd rather be talking about differentials and mufflers and timing belts.

You said it better than I did.

The key point is - science class teaches how to apply scientific principles to natural problems. Creationism does not apply those same principles. It applies a supernatural, faith based structure. Teaching it in science class not only wastes time, but it actively undermines a student's understanding of how the scientific method is applied.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You said it better than I did.

The key point is - science class teaches how to apply scientific principles to natural problems. Creationism does not apply those same principles. It applies a supernatural, faith based structure. Teaching it in science class not only wastes time, but it actively undermines a student's understanding of how the scientific method is applied.

Do these proposed Bills say that Theology must be taught in Science Courses? If that's the case, then I totally get your argument. No issues there. However, I see no reason it can't be taught in another class if that is what each state would like to see happen.

[DjTj]

If this approach had been taken when creationism was the accepted theory, and lets not kid ourselves here, it was an accepted theory at one point, then Science or Evolution would have never been taught.

Scientific theories are not developed in grade school. Yes, we were teaching creationism in grade school when Darwin and others were developing evolutionary theory in scientific journals. We were teaching Aristotelian mechanics while Newton was developing his laws of motion.

But once those theories became accepted in the scientific community, we changed the curriculum in grade schools. People have been taught wrong things in grade school throughout history. But that doesn't mean that once we have discovered that those things are wrong, we need to continue teaching every generation of kids things that we know that are wrong.

Further, it is not my place to tell parents or anybody else, how to use their time. That has to be evaluated by local society and then moved upon. If a State elects to use their time in this way, that is their decision. It is not for me to tell Colorado or Oklahoma or Montana or wherever else, how they should be spending their tax dollars. They have no business telling me how to do it and I, in turn, should not be making those decisions for them.

I thought this was a thread on a football message board. I was not aware that by talking about things here, we are actually telling parents in other states what to do. The voters and representatives of these states will ultimately vote upon the best course of action for their own children. But this is an issue that comes up in many different states, and I think it's worthwhile for all Americans to discuss it.

[Predicto]

If this approach had been taken when creationism was the accepted theory, and lets not kid ourselves here, it was an accepted theory at one point, then Science or Evolution would have never been taught.

Further, it is not my place to tell parents or anybody else, how to use their time. That has to be evaluated by local society and then moved upon. If a State elects to use their time in this way, that is their decision. It is not for me to tell Colorado or Oklahoma or Montana or wherever else, how they should be spending their tax dollars. They have no business telling me how to do it and I, in turn, should not be making those decisions for them.

Well, the reasons why teaching creationism in science class is not a good idea (from a science learning point of view) are not the same reasons that it is not valid from a legal point of view under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

You should read the court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D.Pa. 2005) 400 F.Supp.2d 707 if you want to understand the legal principles. The court held a 40 day trial to evaluate the claims that 1) creation science was actually "science" and 2) creation science proponents just wanted to "teach the controversy" (and what's wrong with doing that? and 3) teaching the theory of creationism in science class did not promote a particular religion.

Here is a summary of the court's findings.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64)

[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[ABQCOWBOY]

Scientific theories are not developed in grade school. Yes, we were teaching creationism in grade school when Darwin and others were developing evolutionary theory in scientific journals. We were teaching Aristotelian mechanics while Newton was developing his laws of motion.

But once those theories became accepted in the scientific community, we changed the curriculum in grade schools. People have been taught wrong things in grade school throughout history. But that doesn't mean that once we have discovered that those things are wrong, we need to continue teaching every generation of kids things that we know that are wrong.

No. If there is one thing about Science that is proven over and over, it is that things change and what we thought and believed to be fact one day, can be proven wrong the next. This is not to say that the theory of Creationism is not correct. It might be but it also might not be. The Big Bang Theory is challenged now from science. Learning is never a bad thing and to prevent it is the wrong direction for a civilized culture. The study of one does not preclude the study of the other.

I thought this was a thread on a football message board. I was not aware that by talking about things here, we are actually telling parents in other states what to do. The voters and representatives of these states will ultimately vote upon the best course of action for their own children. But this is an issue that comes up in many different states, and I think it's worthwhile for all Americans to discuss it.

Believe, nobody is more surprised then I. What we are talking about here is legislation in other States. Why would we oppose what they may or may not legally adopt in their own states? This is not a civil rights issue, nor is it something that is physically harmful. What was going on at the beginning of this thread was not discussion in my view. It was ridicule. That's not good.

[Predicto]

Do these proposed Bills say that Theology must be taught in Science Courses? If that's the case, then I totally get your argument. No issues there. However, I see no reason it can't be taught in another class if that is what each state would like to see happen.

Creationism is theology. It has no scientific basis, only a theological basis. The efforts to place it in science courses are a blatant effort to teach theology as science in order to advance the religion and undermine the science (that the religious adherents feel is a challenge to their faith).

No one ever says that you can't also study religion in an appropriate class that isn't science class.

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 02:30 PM ----------

No. If there is one thing about Science that is proven over and over, it is that things change and what we thought and believed to be fact one day, can be proven wrong the next. This is not to say that the theory of Creationism is not correct. It might be but it also might not be. The Big Bang Theory is challenged now from science. Learning is never a bad thing and to prevent it is the wrong direction for a civilized culture. The study of one does not preclude the study of the other.

This is a nice broad generic thing to say, and the fact that you keep repeating it makes me fear that you didn't attempt to understand what anyone else is saying in this thread.

If real scientific evidence comes along that calls into question evolutionary theory and supports creationism, then by golly, it's time to go down that road in science class. Scientists will lead the charge in hopes of getting the next Nobel Prize.

But that's not the case. Right now its just some religious people who are afraid that their childrens' adherence to their faith might be undermined by learning unvarnished evolutionary theory, so they try to change the school curriculum. Pretending that it is anything else is silly.

Believe, nobody is more surprised then I. What we are talking about here is legislation in other States. Why would we oppose what they may or may not legally adopt in their own states? This is not a civil rights issue, nor is it something that is physically harmful. What was going on at the beginning of this thread was not discussion in my view. It was ridicule. That's not good.

It is a constitutional issue. Read the Kitzmiller case.

[Predicto]

double post

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, the reasons why teaching creationism in science class is not a good idea (from a science learning point of view) are not the same reasons that it is not valid from a legal point of view under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

You should read the court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D.Pa. 2005) 400 F.Supp.2d 707 if you want to understand the legal principles. The court held a 40 day trial to evaluate the claims that 1) creation science was actually "science" and 2) creation science proponents just wanted to "teach the controversy" (and what's wrong with doing that? and 3) teaching the theory of creationism in science class did not promote a particular religion.

Here is a summary of the court's findings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I understand this but again, my question is, do the Bills that are being presented for consideration suggest that Creationism be taught in the same course as the Scientific Theory? If the answer is yes, then again, I say I completely understand and agree.

However, I see no reason it can not be offered as a separate course.

[talk show host]

Creationism is theology. It has no scientific basis, only a theological basis. The efforts to place it in science courses are a blatant effort to teach theology as science in order to advance the religion and undermine the science (that the religious adherents feel is a challenge to their faith).

No one ever says that you can't also study religion in an appropriate class that isn't science class.

I get your point, but i disagree. at some point, alot of something came out of nothing. The laws of conservation of matter an energy do not address how everything in the universe to came to be originally (and this holds true even if you think the universe has been expanding and contracting forever. There are all sorts of "scientific" theories out there, but none of them are any more "scientific"than saying an intelligent extra-dimensional being started everything.

[Corcaigh]

Science says there is no such thing of a God.

Which science journal says that?

I never was taught that in science class and no science textbook I have ever seen makes claims about a god.

[Predicto]

I understand this but again, my question is, do the Bills that are being presented for consideration suggest that Creationism be taught in the same course as the Scientific Theory? If the answer is yes, then again, I say I completely understand and agree.

Did you read the article linked in the OP? It's explained in there. After the Kitzmiller case, it is pretty clear that you can no longer openly require public schools to teach "creation science" in science class until there is some actual "science" behind the theory.

So the next step has been to require schools to teach that evolutionary theory is "controversial" or "unproven" or full of "scientific weaknesses." It's the new way to get to the same result.

However, I see no reason it can not be offered as a separate course.

Well, then you are discussing something different than anyone else here is.

[Corcaigh]

I don't understand why they can't introduce both sides. I mean what's wrong with a teacher saying:

"Some people believe that the earth started with a big bang and evelution of humans started later on and

Some people believe in creationism in that God created the earth."

Is it because it will offend someone? Wording it correctly is not pushing your beliefs on someone, but introducing two possible explainations.

There's nothing wrong with that in a philosophy or religious studies class. But why are you arguing in favor of teaching religion in science class.

[Predicto]

I get your point, but i disagree. at some point, alot of something came out of nothing. The laws of conservation of matter an energy do not address how everything in the universe to came to be originally (and this holds true even if you think the universe has been expanding and contracting forever. There are all sorts of "scientific" theories out there, but none of them are any more "scientific"than saying an intelligent extra-dimensional being started everything.

Evolution is a biological field of study. It has nothing to do with cosmology (the study of the beginning of the universe).

Religious fundamentalists tend to conflate the two things because they feel that both scientific studies are part of the same attack on their religious beliefs, but the really have nothing to do with one another.

[Corcaigh]

I get your point, but i disagree. at some point, alot of something came out of nothing. The laws of conservation of matter an energy do not address how everything in the universe to came to be originally (and this holds true even if you think the universe has been expanding and contracting forever. There are all sorts of "scientific" theories out there, but none of them are any more "scientific"than saying an intelligent extra-dimensional being started everything.

The Big Bang and the origin of the Universe (or even the origin of life) is not what this thread is about. It's about evolution, i..e the origin of species.

Which of these scientific theories that you find not credible are currently being taught in high school?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Did you read the article linked in the OP? It's explained in there. After the Kitzmiller case, it is pretty clear that you can no longer openly require public schools to teach "creation science" in science class until there is some actual "science" behind the theory.

So the next step has been to require schools to teach that evolutionary theory is "controversial" or "unproven" or full of "scientific weaknesses." It's the new way to get to the same result.

I stated in an earlier post that I did not read where it said that any of these bills are requiring the teaching of Theology in the same class as Scientific Theory. The piece eludes to the fact that this is what's being proposed but it does not say that, in fact, this is what's actually being proposed. That's a red herring.

This article reads a lot into what each state is trying to propose. Nothing based on fact, so far as I can tell. The Case you presented seemed to me to produce a judgement around teaching both in the same course or forcing teachers to teach both in the same course. If I am wrong, please tell me. I am certainly not beyond misunderstanding such things. If that's the case, then I still see no reason each course can not be offered.

Well, then you are discussing something different than anyone else here is.

I don't think I'm discussing something else. I think I'm trying to make observations and then putting those observations forth to further the discussion. I guess it could be a perception issue.

[Corcaigh]

What was going on at the beginning of this thread was not discussion in my view. It was ridicule. That's not good.

Read the judgement in the Kitzmiller case. What was demonstrated there, and has been shown in many other places, is the extreme efforts that lawyers and politicians will go to to get their particular brand of Christian theology inserted in the science curriculum in public schools. Simply because a portion of the biology curriculum doesn't match their specific religious doctrine.

The latest antics of another religious group of fundamentalists trying to force their view on others deserves both our ridicule and contempt for their unAmerican behavior.

[talk show host]

The Big Bang and the origin of the Universe (or even the origin of life) is not what this thread is about. It's about evolution, i..e the origin of species.

Which of these scientific theories that you find not credible are currently being taught in high school?

My post was a specific response to a statement made which said creationism (which is a general term to cover everything from the beginning of the universe to what we see around us now) has no scientific basis. my point was that its not a fair statement. There are no "scientific" explanations for the origin of the universe. But i get your point that the thread is solely talking about evolution.

[Predicto]

I stated in an earlier post that I did not read where it said that any of these bills are requiring the teaching of Theology in the same class as Scientific Theory. The piece eludes to the fact that this is what's being proposed but it does not say that, in fact, this is what's actually being proposed. That's a red herring.

This article reads a lot into what each state is trying to propose. Nothing based on fact, so far as I can tell. The Case you presented seemed to me to produce a judgement around teaching both in the same course or forcing teachers to teach both in the same course. If I am wrong, please tell me. I am certainly not beyond misunderstanding such things. If that's the case, then I still see no reason each course can not be offered.

Umm... I don't understand. You are assuming that the article is misrepresenting what actually is happening? Or are you saying that you don't think that what is being proposed is not, in fact, an effort to undermine the effective teaching of the scientific theory of biological evolution?

You appear to be proposing that public schools teach a science course on evolution and a separate science course containing the "science" of creationism. Am I correct in that?

[Corcaigh]

However, I see no reason it can not be offered as a separate course.

There is no reason that high schools can't teach all manner of subjects. But why do you think this (questions about the science of evolution) is such an important topic for high school students?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Umm... I don't understand. You are assuming that the article is misrepresenting what actually is happening? Or are you saying that you don't think that what is being proposed is not, in fact, an effort to undermine the effective teaching of the scientific theory of biological evolution?

You appear to be proposing that public schools teach a science course on evolution and a separate science course containing the "science" of creationism. Am I correct in that?

It says itself that on the surface, this is reasonable but then goes in to explaining why it may not be. Without actually knowing what the Bills are trying to propose, exactly, it seems reasonable to ask the question, "What are these Bills proposing?" To specifically answer your question, I would say that it is reasonable to keep Science Courses separate from Theology Courses. I don't know if you call the study or teaching of Creationism (if that is what is being proposed as curriculum) Science per say but yes, I would not be opposed to offering courses on each it that is what the people of those states elect to do.

[Predicto]

My post was a specific response to a statement made which said creationism (which is a general term to cover everything from the beginning of the universe to what we see around us now) has no scientific basis. my point was that its not a fair statement. There are no "scientific" explanations for the origin of the universe. But i get your point that the thread is solely talking about evolution.

Fair enough. Generally speaking, when people are talking about creationism in the context of evolution (or geology, or the fossil record, or carbon dating, or whatever) the discussion revolves around young earth creationist efforts to get public schools not to teach science in a way that might undermine their viewpoint of absolutely literal biblical interpretation.

When it comes to the origins of the universe 14 billion years ago - all bets are off. God seems a plausible a theory to me as anything else.