The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

This is a specious argument often made by Creationists: "We just want all theories taught." Never mind that Creationism and ID are not theories, but Biblical mythology and quackery respectively (and anyone who claims they are anything other display an egregious ignorance of, and even disdain for, the pinciples of science). And there are no valid scentific theories competing with evolution to explain the origin of species.

If Creationism is a valid competing "theory" to evolution, why stop there? Along with neurology, let's also teach phrenology. Follow a lesson in chemistry with a lesson in alchemy. Want to study astronomy? Great, then you'll also need to study astrology. The study of medicine should also include the study of voodoo, shouldn't it? After all, these are all competing "theories" to actual scientific learning, if what qualifies as a theory is simply anything that is claimed as such by anyone.

Say you go to your doctor complaining of chest pain. Instead of running tests on you, he inspects the bumbs on your head, checks your horoscope, hands you a rabbit's foot, then asks that you "keep an open mind." You probably wouldn't return to that doctor, mostly because you'd be dead.

No one would stand for this, of course. But somehow teaching Creationism in a biology class is OK? Please.

I have no particular objection to saying that some mythological and extraordinarily elusive character created the universe. What I consider to be important is the tools it may have used. That is what I want me and my children to know about. "Gawd didut" is not especially informative or useful, and is downright destructive when used to prevent rational thought. I am willing to accept that there are things unknowable, though I reserve the right to think about them once in a while.

One of the oriental religions has it that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. The answer to the obvious question of what that turtle rests on is "another turtle", and so forth. Our "intelligent designers" haven't yet gotten around to asking the same obvious and unavoidable question: "If God created the universe, what created God?"
My guess is that they never will, since asking it would knock monotheism into a cocked hat. :lol:

 

[paulmarkj]

It is important to teach not just one theory or another, but to teach what a theory is and to teach why there are different theories and counter arguments. This is all good for the students' minds. (I have been a primary school teacher in the UK, and 5 year olds are taught abount 'fair tests' and taught to question evidence critically.)

If you teach the theory of evolution, then you must teach any lack of proof or counter argument to the theory. But if you bring creationism into the scientific debate, this too must be questioned, going into teacher mode, I might ask: 'why might some people object to the theory of creation?'. An answer might be because some people say God does not exist.

If you don't allow God to be criticised in the classroom, then it is not a science lesson. Science is an approach to learning, not just facts.

 

[YamiB.]

It is important to teach not just one theory or another, but to teach what a theory is and to teach why there are different theories and counter arguments. This is all good for the students' minds. (I have been a primary school teacher in the UK, and 5 year olds are taught abount 'fair tests' and taught to question evidence critically.)

If you teach the theory of evolution, then you must teach any lack of proof or counter argument to the theory. But if you bring creationism into the scientific debate, this too must be questioned, going into teacher mode, I might ask: 'why might some people object to the theory of creation?'. An answer might be because some people say God does not exist.

If you don't allow God to be criticised in the classroom, then it is not a science lesson. Science is an approach to learning, not just facts.

If we teach every theory we wouldn't be teaching ID or Creationism because they're not really theories.

ID/Creationism has no place in a classroom because there is not a way to prove it false.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

"ID/Creationism has no place in a classroom because there is not a way to prove it false."

Nor any way to prove it true, for that matter.

 

[Thinker]

If you want a well-argued essay on why creationism should be kept out of
science in schools, look here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

 

[paulmarkj]

From the article:

Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

I would not give equal time to holocuast deniers, but I would discuss it. Don't deny there are deniers - face up to it. Put it another way, if a student asks "isn't it true that some people say the Holocause never happened?" What would you say:

a) They are wrong. It did happen
b) What do you think?

I can tell you, answer a) will convince no one - students don't like being told what to think. I guarantee b) (in my school, anyway) would prompt the children to think of dozens reasons how we can prove the holocaust happened. This will stick in their minds, because they have thought about.

Similarly (and back to the subject) with creationism and evolution.

I agree that creationism is not a science, but children have to be taught that. That won't happen in an R.E. class, because R.E. is not about teaching science, so it is up to the science teachers to say: "this is how we approach a science..." (hypothesis , theory, prediction, proof). Let the children answer the questions. In my experience, the children are often brighter than you think, and often collectively come up with very good ideas, ideas they'kk remember.

A lot of the Gaurdian article explains why evolution is right and creationsim/ID is wrong and also explains how the arguments are manipulated. Contrary to the article's conclusion, I say, be honest, tell the pupils. Let then learn arguments can be manipulated, let them learn how to cut through the evidence to find the truth.

 

[Thinker]

From the article:

I would not give equal time to holocuast deniers, but I would discuss it. Don't
deny there are deniers - face up to it. Put it another way, if a student asks
"isn't it true that some people say the Holocause never happened?" What
would you say?...Contrary to the article's conclusion, I say, be honest, tell
the pupils. Let then learn arguments can be manipulated, let them learn how
to cut through the evidence to find the truth.

There are two distinct issues here: answering questions, and deliberately
introducing a subject. I do not think anyone is trying to prevent questions
being answered honestly. If someone asked about creationism I think it would
be an excellent opportunity to discuss how it is a perfect example of
something that pretends to be scientific while actually being nothing of the
sort.

Would you introduce every pseudo-scientific idea that has fallen by the
wayside? If so, you would have no time for real science. If not, why would
you pick on one myth (creationism) and ignore the rest?

 

[kal-el]

No, that is exactly contrary to what I said. My belief is that the watch was built very intentionally and for a specific purpose, but that process was long. I am simply disputing the idea that the watch appeared "poof" fully formed approximately 6,000 years ago. Believing that God worked through the process of evolution does not take anything away from God. To me, it is all the more wonderful to imagine God patiently tending the Earth for billions of years, prodding a genome here and there, and preparing the world for the lifeform made in His image. I am suggesting that evolution occured, but it was anything but random.

Agreed. I have been presented with enough facts to back up evolution, but I still believe that it wasn't random. I believe evolution did indeed happen, but "God" as some might say, got the ball rolling.

 

[steen]

Agreed. I have been presented with enough facts to back up evolution, but I still believe that it wasn't random. I believe evolution did indeed happen, but "God" as some might say, got the ball rolling.

One thing is puzzling me. Where did the creationist claim of "random" come from in connection with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Because it really doesn't fit anything relating to Scientific Evidence. WHat is this weird idea, where did it come from, and what is its relevance?

 

[paulmarkj]

There are two distinct issues here: answering questions, and deliberately
introducing a subject. I do not think anyone is trying to prevent questions
being answered honestly. If someone asked about creationism I think it would
be an excellent opportunity to discuss how it is a perfect example of
something that pretends to be scientific while actually being nothing of the
sort.

Would you introduce every pseudo-scientific idea that has fallen by the
wayside? If so, you would have no time for real science. If not, why would
you pick on one myth (creationism) and ignore the rest?

No. You answer the question yourself: there isn't enough time to teach pupils about everything in the world. We have to have a balance. You start with the basics and move on to greater depths and greater detail as time allows.

If you were to tell me what subjects you learnt in geography or history, I bet I can reply with "why didn't you learn about x, y and z? aren't they important?" Everything is important but we can't learn everything.

Why do I pick creationism above other myths? The evolution vs. creationism debate is a good representitive of the science vs. non-science and science vs. religion. It is a subject that most children already know something about. It is a huge debate. It is interesting.It WILL be discussed outside the classroom, so lets be honest about; don't fear it.

What other myths are there that cause greater debate? that are more interesting? that children want to know about? Tell me them and if I ever teach again, I'll use them. (Once a teacher, always a teacher: always looking for new ideas).

(Incidentally, I was taught about evolution vs. creatioism when I was 8 years old. My teacher asked us if creationsim could be true. "No," said one boy, "because we've found fossils that are millions of years old". The teacher replied, "but some people say God made those fossils to test us". It made us think, it made us laugh, but nobody believed the creationism story.)

 

[kal-el]

One thing is puzzling me. Where did the creationist claim of "random" come from in connection with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Because it really doesn't fit anything relating to Scientific Evidence. WHat is this weird idea, where did it come from, and what is its relevance?

Well, I take it all you guys that believe in evolution, don't believe it was started by a supreme being, instead it was "random." I don't think anything can exist without a higher power pulling the strings.

 

[nkgupta80]

Well, I take it all you guys that believe in evolution, don't believe it was started by a supreme being, instead it was "random." I don't think anything can exist without a higher power pulling the strings.

although evolution itself is not random at all, the beginnings of life have been debatable. HOwever, as all things in science, an intelligent being cannot be included as a factor. At the moment, theories are being considered as to the creation of life and whether it was a chance happening or an inevitability.

 

[Thinker]

Why do I pick creationism above other myths? The evolution
vs. creationism debate is a good representitive of the science vs. non-science
and science vs. religion.

I grant you that. It may be worthy of an extremely brief mention as an example
of pseudo science.

...It is interesting.

I would have through that, from a science standpoint, creationism is far from
interesting; it has zero scientific basis. By all means discuss it in classes with
a philosophical theme, but, other than with the exception mentioned above,
keep such nonsense out of science classes.

 

[nkgupta80]

(Incidentally, I was taught about evolution vs. creatioism when I was 8 years old. My teacher asked us if creationsim could be true. "No," said one boy, "because we've found fossils that are millions of years old". The teacher replied, "but some people say God made those fossils to test us". It made us think, it made us laugh, but nobody believed the creationism story.)

and its this kinda thinking that will sadly hinder scientific progress in our country. Science cannot survive when you introduce the idea of an intelligent being, simply because we don't know the methods and working of this God or intelligent being. If we were to do so, why keep asking questions? Human quest for understanding would be done. The answer to everything could be "intelligent being."

 

[paulmarkj]

and its this kinda thinking that will sadly hinder scientific progress in our country. Science cannot survive when you introduce the idea of an intelligent being, simply because we don't know the methods and working of this God or intelligent being. If we were to do so, why keep asking questions? Human quest for understanding would be done. The answer to everything could be "intelligent being."

Of course science can survive. It has survived centuries of religion - when religion was a powerful political force. It will survive because people challenge religious view, but only because people know HOW to challenge these views.

So, this kind of thinking wil not hinder it but encourage science. It will encourage intelligent thought.

I want people to challenge these views, not ignore them. I want pupils to be equipped with the necessary mechanisms to make these challenges.

How many times have I heard arguments such as: horoscopes work because of what happened to their Aunt or smoking is not bad because my grandfather is 87 and he smokes 40 a day or drink driving is ok because I’ve never had an accident yet. These people have heard a thousand times that horoscopes/smoking/drink driving are wrong, but until they have the necessary knowledge if the processes that negate these arguments, they cannot challenge them.

Science has two different levels: “how scientific ideas are presented, evaluated and disseminated”, investigative skills, obtaining evidence and the subject knowledge. If we just present truths, pupils will never leanr the other skills.

I will quote from the UK National Curriculum:

1) Students should be taught:
a. how scientific ideas are presented, evaluated and disseminated [for
example, by publication, review by other scientists]
b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of
evolution]
c. ways in which scientific work may be affected by the contexts in
which it takes place [for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual],
and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted
d. to consider the power and limitations of science in addressing
industrial, social and environmental questions, including the kinds of
questions science can and cannot answer, uncertainties in scientific
knowledge, and the ethical issues involved.

Note how Darwin is given as an example, note also how where this section sits in the N.C.: it is number 1, top of the list.

Why ask questions? To challenge.

 

[nkgupta80]

oh sure, challenge all you want. I totally agree with the point. But in the context of creationism, just because it can challenge evolution by posing certain questions does not make it an alternative theory to evolution. Children should always be able to ask about creationism, or ask questions that test evolution to its limits. However, putting all these questions and viewpoints as an alternate in a textbook is going a step too far.

Any class in our education system should be open to all kinds of questions, but the material we teach, especially in science, should be something that reflects the greater scientific community.

 

[steen]

Well, I take it all you guys that believe in evolution,

Huh? "Believe"? Science is about the data, the facts, not personal beliefs, so you are not entirely making sense here.

don't believe it was started by a supreme being,

Evolution is a process, it wasn't "started" by anything, it merely comes into play when organic organisms change over generations.

instead it was "random."

And per the confusion regarding the above claims, this also is confusiong. Could you elaborate?

I don't think anything can exist without a higher power pulling the strings.

Because?

 

[kal-el]

Because?

Well, let's say that we were wiped out, or taken over by computers. Is this the next step in evolution? The evoltionary process of apes to man takes a long sucession of mutations and natural selections. In the case of man to computer, there is no mutations or natural selections, but actually an act of creation by the human brain. IMO, this doesn't fit into the evolutionary framework, actually, I think it supports the creationist theory?

 

[steen]

Well, let's say that we were wiped out, or taken over by computers. Is this the next step in evolution?

??? The question was about whether a higher power was necessary for Evolution to occur.

The evoltionary process of apes to man takes a long sucession of mutations and natural selections. In the case of man to computer, there is no mutations or natural selections, but actually an act of creation by the human brain. IMO, this doesn't fit into the evolutionary framework,

Because it is not a biological organism, adapting through evolution to fit into its niche the best possible, yes. So it is rather irrelevant to what drives evolution.

actually, I think it supports the creationist theory?

"What "theory" is that? It is not a Scientific Theory. The only thing I see from creationists, and I have been at this for a very long time, long befoe the bulletin boards, all the way back on usenet, the only thing I see from creationists are false claims, lies and misrepresentations about Evolution, nothing but strawmen.

So what supports such nonsense as creationism?

 

[kal-el]

???
So what supports such nonsense as creationism?

I am not doubting evolution at all, but, like I said earlier, I believe another intelligence initiated it.

 

[steen]

I am not doubting evolution at all, but, like I said earlier, I believe another intelligence initiated it.

And yes, you can do that, you can believe anything you want to. There is no evidence for or against your claim, so it is wide open for speculation, it is philosophy.

 

[conan]

And yes, you can do that, you can believe anything you want to. There is no evidence for or against your claim, so it is wide open for speculation, it is philosophy.

Since when does random causes produce specified complexity?

Suppose you get up to have breakfast and the alphabet cereal has spilled on the table spelling out you name and address. What would you assume? The cat knocked it over? The fan blew on it? Of course not. Why then do you assume DNA is a product of time/chance/matter? How is that anything other than philosophy?

 

[steen]

Since when does random causes produce specified complexity?

Your claim seems irrelevant. Could you elaborate on what you mean? What 'randomness' are you talking about?

Suppose you get up to have breakfast and the alphabet cereal has spilled on the table spelling out you name and address. What would you assume? The cat knocked it over? The fan blew on it? Of course not.

And non-biological events that thus have nothing to do with the process of evolution has nothing to do with any of this. Why such an absurd and irrelevant point?

Why then do you assume DNA is a product of time/chance/matter? How is that anything other than philosophy?

DNA complexity certainly is a matter of TIME, as we have documented changes, mutations and the spreading of specific genes in a population over time.
As for CHANCE, again, it is not quite clear what you mean. What about "chance" are you trying to correlate to DNA? And as for MATTER, certainly DNA is made up of matter, so it is not clear what your point has to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution???

Your point simply doesn't make sense; it has an aura of ignorance of science over it. Please assure me that it isn't so, that you aren't discussing the sciences without knowing anything about it.

Because that just makes you the typical ignorant, deceptive creationist who claims Evolution to be wrong merely because it goes against their faith, and with no knowledge whatsoever about what evolution actually is. You wouldn't do that, would you?

So please elaborate on your post so it makes sense, thanks.

 

[conan]

Your point simply doesn't make sense; it has an aura of ignorance of science over it. Please assure me that it isn't so, that you aren't discussing the sciences without knowing anything about it.

Why is it that materialists always feel the need to avoid and evade questions by claiming someone whom they know nothing about is ignorant. If you can stand, please do and let go of the ad hom crutch.

I asked you some simple questions in response to your claim that a hypothetical intelligent enforcer was nothing more than speculation, as if abiogenesis had any merit. All I recieved was dodging and hedging by way of answering with non-questions.

I percieve you have no answers. However, I ask the fundamental question once more. How is your claim (materialism) any thing other than philosophy?

 

[argexpat]

A lot of the Gaurdian article explains why evolution is right and creationsim/ID is wrong and also explains how the arguments are manipulated. Contrary to the article's conclusion, I say, be honest, tell the pupils. Let then learn arguments can be manipulated, let them learn how to cut through the evidence to find the truth.

That's all well and good, but this still doesn't belong in a science class, it belongs in a logic or philosophy or debate course. I totally agree that students should be taught critical thinking skills, but presenting pseudo-science in a science class, even as examples of specious intellectual manipulation, simply because some charlatans demand it is validating their bogus claims. There's a way to get your ideas into a science class, and that's called the scientific method, with its rigorous, peer-reviewed process. If your idea doesn't pass muster, you can't then crowbar it into the science class by using the courts and the legislature.