Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[REASON]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Evolution is good science. What I don't understand is why science is so insecure if evolution has so much scientific backing? I am not saying creationism is correct or right, but based on the arguments of science, why are they afraid?

Again I am not saying creationism is sound science or even science, but the defensive reaction by science tells me science seems to feel the need for a monopoly or protectionism, that other areas of science don't ask for.

Neither the science of evolution nor those that are conducting it, espousing it, or teaching it, are insecure or affraid other than whether the integrity of public science education is to be upheld by state and local authorities, and not be corrupted by the influence of those who seek only to undermine legitimate science in favor of their ideological beliefs and worldview.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

You won't see chemistry challenged by the religious people nor science giving it much thought if it was. This is solid in the mind of both. Evolution is insecure science. This vulnerability is why religion is able to get a foot hold. It is not clearly enough defined to eliminate the emotional sentiment. This adds philosophy to the science.

Many other sciences, such as general chemistry, are not attacked by religious institutions because they are not seen as a threat to religious teachings. It has nothing to do with evolution being "insecure" and therefore open to attack by religious philosophy.

Evolution is seen as a direct contradiction to literalist Creation theory and presents a world view that is believed to be atheistic and heretical. It is challenged for the same reasons the Copernican heliocentric model of the universe was challenged by the church. It was seen as contrary to scripture. If you are trying to convince people to believe that the Bible is the word of god, and that god created the heaven and Earth, and mankind in his own image as it states in the Bible, than it is important that children aren't being taught scientific research that is contradictory to those biblical ideas, and removes god from the equation. The purpose of transforming biblical creationism into Inteligent Design, is to attempt to give scientific credibility to religious concepts and provide a seemingly legitimate alternative to what is already understood to be legitimate science with the Theory of Evolution.

ID is essentially a way out of what has become an established scientific theory, for parents who don't want their children's minds corrupted by godless theories on human origins that are being presented as representations of reality. Especially when it is being paid for by their tax dollars.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Religion is showing how one can start with pure philosophy and add a little science to it. They are both on the border of pure science and pure religion.

The purpose of attempting to add scientific backing to certain religious assertions such as ID or Hydroplate Theory, is simply to try and expand its legitimacy to those who are attuned to science and question the validity of religious teachings, and to bring into question the validity of science that contradicts or undermines their religious belief systems. But they are far from pure science. If they were, they would more rigorously expose their theories to peer review instead of working so hard to expose them to children.

So from this point of view, which side is really exposing their insecurities?

[pamela]

Pope sees physicist Hawking at evolution gathering - Yahoo! News

This article touched on a few points from Stephen Hawkins recent visit with the pope

"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences"

"The catholic church teaches a theistic evolution which accepts evolution as scientic theory"

At least this is a start down a long journey and hopefully will ease some of the tension along the way

[REASON]

Originally Posted by pamela

Pope sees physicist Hawking at evolution gathering - Yahoo! News

This article touched on a few points from Stephen Hawkins recent visit with the pope

"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences"

"The catholic church teaches a theistic evolution which accepts evolution as scientic theory"

At least this is a start down a long journey and hopefully will ease some of the tension along the way

As it were, those that seek to inject Creationism into science classes in our public schools don't find the Catholic Church to be all that legitimate either.

But you're right, it is a start. Imagine that, the Catholic Church is more progressive in this regard than certain protestant faiths. Who'd-a-thunk?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by pamela

well.....We cannot simply hide Creationism under the rug, when so many people believe it to be true.
Both evolution and creationism need to be learned and it is up to the student to determine the legitamacy. ...

Sorry Pam,
but we do NOT require the student to determine the legitimacy of arithmatic, or algebra, or American history, or World history, or geography, or auto maintenance, or penmanship, or English literature, or composition or any other subject in high, middle and elementary school.

We do NOT do it, and it is inappropriate. Children do not have the resources, experience, logic, training or aptitude (yet) for "determining legitimacy".

What we DO is give them facts, and teach them skills.
If Creationism comes up in the classroom, we need to say simply:

"many people believe in Creationism. However it is not supported by physical evidence and it is not supported by rigorous logic. We know that the believers say that it IS. However, the evidence and logic they claim for Creationism, when examined closely, is just a reflection of religious belief or obsession. The efforts to get Creationism taught in school as a "science" has been dealt defeat after defeat in the courts. The schools cannot teach every subject that some small minority of vocal, even militant, people claim as "science". We do not teach astrology, numerology, palm-reading, UFOs, ESP and other subjects for the same reason -- the facts and evidence are just not there, despite the claims of the believers. You are free to research and study any of these topics outside of the classroom. You are free to believe in anything you want. But the national public school system is under no obligation whatsoever to defend or teach your personal beliefs. We are here to educate you."

Sorry to disagree with you Pam. But this time I have to.
Yer frend and admirer,
Pyro

[pamela]

rhetoric such a sweet thing to savour....

First off, I am certainly not suggesting teaching it as a science, the above posts reflect that. What I do insist upon is the right to think and not just accept what is written, especially in the realm of religion. The data and facts on other subjects was not even in question here. As stated before, I am leaning towards middle school and not younger, and certainly by high school. I have stated that creationism is a myth and should be treated as such along the lines of Greek Mythology. I am not seeing where you and I are disagreeing, my friend

[Phoenix_Enflame]

Originally Posted by REASON

As it were, those that seek to inject Creationism into science classes in our public schools don't find the Catholic Church to be all that legitimate either.

But you're right, it is a start. Imagine that, the Catholic Church is more progressive in this regard than certain protestant faiths. Who'd-a-thunk?

This was certainly a surprise;
"The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work."

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Enflame

This was certainly a surprise;
"The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work."

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution
1:06AM BST 14 Sep 2008
The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".
[...]
The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

They actually decided not to do it a couple days later:
Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican | Science | Reuters

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican
Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:07pm EDT
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species".
[...]
Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.
[...]
But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned".

[Phoenix_Enflame]

Thank you. I was unaware that the apology was never brought to fruition.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph
...
They actually decided not to do it a couple days later:
Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican | Science | Reuters

I believe Galopagos is confusing Christian churches. The Church of England, AKA the Anglican Church, is a different organization that the Roman Catholic Church, which owns and is lead from the Vatican.

The 9/14/08 Telegraph.co.uk article states that the following will appear on a Church of England website:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise (sic) the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

and, true to promise, that text appears verbatim (except for a spelling correction) at Good religion needs good science | Church of England. As the Catholic Church’s Gianfranco Ravasi states, that church had little involvement in early “Origin of Species” debates, so reasonable can claim to owe no apologies on the matter.

The whole matter of 21st century clerics apologizing to long-dead 19th century naturalists is, I think, a bit of commemorative theatrics, referring back perhaps to the famous 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate, in which Anglican bishop Samuel Wilberforce, in the course of the heated debate, pelted his his opponent, Thomas Huxley, with such gems as asking Huxley if he was “descended from a monkey” by his mother or father (to which Huxley retorted that he’d not be ashamed to have a monkey in his family, but would to be related to Wilberforce). Considering that most (though not all, notably not Huxley) 19th century English scientists and intellectuals were technically Anglican Clergy, it’s little wonder that many early critics of Darwin’s theory were Anglicans.

Wilberforce’s famous vitriol aside, Darwin personally appears to have been in pretty good graces with the Church of England, as he was never excommunicated (despite his professed agnosticism) and was given a state burial in its most famous Churches, Westminster Abbey, near the tomb of Isaac Newton. In the four and two centuries since Copernicus and Galileo, the Anglican and Catholic churches had become much more science-friendly.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by pamela

Presenting all types of religions, not just Christianity, would broaden the minds of students. Of course, it would need to be objective.We cannot simply hide Creationism under the rug, when so many people believe it to be true.

Both evolution and creationism need to be learned and it is up to the student to determine the legitamacy. I would not suppress it, or any belief system's fundamentals.The world is a vast place with many ideas and concepts that are worthy of investigating, if only for the reason of understanding humanity and furthering the human cause

I tend very much to agree with Dan Dennett's advocation that religion, all religion, be taught in schools, so we can understand its nature as a natural phenomenon. It is a part of most of the world's cultures and I believe there would be a lot less intolerance of others if everyone understood the beliefs of others and why they believed as they do. For these reasons I believe it is an authentic topic of philosophy and should be covered in such curriculum.

It is not a valid topic for biology class and neither is creationism. It doesn't matter if everyone on Earth believed creationism to be true, that would not actually make it true. The fact is that there is no physical, measurable, testable, verifiable scientific evidence to support creationism as anything more than a philosophical belief. It does not meet the scientific requirements to merit covereage in a physical science class such as biology.

In the end we must realize that evolution and creationism are really ideals about two totally different things and should not be presented as competing theories at all. One is about how life changes and adapts over time leading to new biological variations based on natural selection. It is not about the origin of life at all while the later is only a speculation on how life began, a philosophical conjecture. Both have a place in the curriculum but not as competing memes in the same classroom.