| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 14:42 -0700 8/24/02, Gary Turner wrote:
There are two reasons why I think this is a mistake. First
However, I do agree with teaching creationism alongside evolution in some
schools. I is not an attack on thinking, it promotes thinking. You have
two "theories", one says ... and the evidence/problem is ..., the other
says ... and the evidence/problem is .... To deny that creationism exists
is self-defeating. If a teacher claims that we descended from bacteria
(which spontaneously appeared from dirt), and a church leader claims that
God made the world and everything on it in seven days, which one will a
child believe? Without any guided discussion, it is extremely difficult to
make an informed decision.
Alternatives to any "theory" should be presented, particularly when they
are believed by a significant proportion of the general public. That makes
the teaching of creationism more important in some school districts than in
others.
creationism is *not* science--it is religion. There is no "theory" of
creationism. It is a flat assertion, with no evidence given. You will
note that when creationists argue for their position, their arguments
are entirely aimed at discrediting the evolutionary position, usually
by distorting or even falsifying the facts. They can offer no
evidence for their position. The entire basis for their arguments is
that evolution is wrong and so therefore creationism as outlined in
the Book of Genesis must be right.
In the final analysis, students are not required to *believe* in
evolution, they are only required to *understand* it. Whether they
decide to believe it or not is entirely up to them. But if they take
a biology course in college, they may be surprised to find that at
that level there is no controversy about evolution. Outside of Bob
Jones Univesity, Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, and a
few others of that ilk, you are going to have a hard time finding any
biologist who doesn't operate within the framework of Darwinian
evolution and its modern synthesis. This is a controversy created by
a small cadre of zealots who have distorted the facts for their own
ends, and managed to drag a not insignificant portion of the
scientifically illiterate population along with them.
In fact, at least in physics classes, we spend a lot of time
discussing alternatives to various theories. We talk about the
Aristotelian view versus the Newtonian view. We talk about the wave
theory of light and the particle theory of light. We talk about
Newtonian gravity and Relativistic gravity, and Galilean relativity
and Einstein's relativity. We talk about the caloric theory of heat
and the modern thermodynamic view, and other that I can't think of of
the top of my head. In chemistry classes, I'm sure they talk about
the Phlogiston theory, and many others. In biology class they talk
about different views of evolution--Lamarkian, Darwinian, Lyell's
proposals, and others, including, of course the modern synthesis and
Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium. At least most of these
discussions can be based on evidence for and against on both sides.
So to argue that we are sweeping a controversy under the rug because
we are afraid of it is just not true. Scientifically, there is no
controversy about the idea of descent with modification. Remember,
Darwin entitled his book "The Origin of Species" and not "The Origin
of Life." Contrary to what some opponents of evolution argue,
evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only about how life
evolves. The origin of life is a separate topic within biology, about
which we know very much less than we do about what happened after
life appeared.
Second, is the time factor. We already have far more to teach in our
science classes than we can hope to get through, and to deal with
this issue in science class is to invite getting bogged down in an
endless debate, that goes nowhere and results in no learning. Far
better to have schools that feel it is worthwhile to offer a
non-science course which deals entirely with this debate, and looks
at *all* creation ideas, not just the Genesis version. There would be
no problem with such a course, as long as it is taught impartially,
with no preference given to any particular religion's point of view.
It then becomes a course *about* religion, and not a religion course.
For some more cogent arguments about why talking about creationism in
science classes is a bad idea, go to the website of the National
Center for Science Education <http://www.natcenscied.org>.
Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>
(919) 467-7610
Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************