Wheres the debate on whether we teach creationism or evolution in public schools?

[Photonic]

Actually, having gone through both I can understand how it can happen. Biology was never mandatory in my high school, and In the university I went to there were many majors that only required a brief brush with natural science, if that. For instance, the undergraduate requirements in the college of Science and Engineering may only require a token natural science course or two, which could include climatology, nutrition, or geography, none of which touch on evolution.

Well, then it's willful ignorance. Which is it?

 

[Skwim]

Well, then it's willful ignorance. Which is it?

Why? Often time and circumstances dictate what can be known. I would like to have taken classes in art appreciation, but the demands of my major prevented it. So my ignorance of art isn't a willful ignorance but a coerced ignorance of sorts.

 

[Photonic]

Why? Often time and circumstances dictate what can be known. I would like to have taken classes in art appreciation, but the demands of my major prevented it. So my ignorance of art isn't a willful ignorance but a coerced ignorance of sorts.

Not to you, was technically responding to the other guy by referencing your post.

My apologies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you answer the question: What tangible benefit does teaching students Darwinian evolution produce? If you attended a college or university, did you study evolution in any of your courses.?

While there are many direct benefits to knowing evolutionary science that several of the people in the thread have already gone into, the study of evolution can be a very good "test case" to teach students about how the scientific method functions: how initial evidence can suggest a hypothesis, which then suggests a method, which leads to observations and conclusions, which must then be reconciled with other science.

In this regard, it's a lot like the study of history: it's often less about the actual subject and more about things like critical thinking, judgement, and learning the process of figuring out what's happened in the world.

A person who has a very good understanding of evolution will be able to apply the same scientific principles to just about anything, and will have the basic mental tools to understand and interpret just about any scientific proposition. That's immensely valuable to anyone, IMO.

jarofthoughts,

Is teaching Darwinian evolution ever "relevant". Once again, you couldn't list any tangible benefits. Darwinian Evolution is a circular theory, sort of like you need to learn it to understand it. You label it science, but the point is that any other "science" has produced tangible benefits to society: knowledge and understanding of the human body has helped doctors cure patients, knowledge and understanding of atoms has allowed chemists to produce useful materials, knowledge and understanding of electromagnetics has allowed engineers to create radios and televisions.

Darwinian evolution appears to have produced no such tangible benefits, although it has been around a long time. This belies its title as "science".

I'm a civil engineer. One aspect of my job is minimizing the effects of urban development on the surrounding ecosystems. Without the science of ecology, I wouldn't be able to do this. Without evolution, there is no science of ecology.

You say you're an engineer; if so, then you know that it's part of our professional duty to know and understand the effects of our professional decisions. If we don't understand how our engineering decisions can affect environments and the species within them, then it's impossible for us to fulfill this part of our duty.

As an electrical engineer, I understand that your immediate work may be somewhat distanced from the natural environment, but hopefully you realize that the larger context of the projects you work on - whatever they are - does have implications for the natural world.

If you're going to understand the full implications of your work - and I would argue that every engineer has a duty to do so - then you need at least a basic understanding of biology, which includes a basic understanding of evolution.

Unless you can state a tangible benefit, then that's at least one vote for no tangible benefits. It will only make sense for me to respond again if you at least attempt to list a tangible benefit.

You might as well be asking for a tangible benefit of the differential equation.

Evolution is the theory that allows biology to make sense. I once heard a quote that struck me: "without evolution, biology is just butterfly collecting." Without a knowledge of evolution, you can examine living things and describe their function, but to understand them and the inter-relationships going on in the natural world, you need evolution.

 

[9Westy9]

Science should be all about the evidence. after this is presented then various view points/ interpretations should be presented about the evidence.

 

[Photonic]

Science should be all about the evidence. after this is presented then various view points/ interpretations should be presented about the evidence.

Kind of difficult when the hypothesis is based on the lack of evidence.

 

[tumbleweed41]

jarofthoughts,
You didn't answer the question. Most university students do not study evolution at all. I attended a major university and earned a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, yet took no courses that touched on Darwinian evolution. I was taught Kirchoff's Voltage loop principle, and with it I was able to analyze and design circuits. I took a writing course and became a better writer in the process. Can you answer the question: What tangible benefit does teaching students Darwinian evolution produce? If you attended a college or university, did you study evolution in any of your courses.?

Tamar,
I agree with your point that Creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, at least as science. You also didn't answer the question: What tangible benefits does teaching evolution produce?

Benefits?
One might as well ask what is the benefit of teaching Atomic Theory to a student majoring in Hospitality Management.
Those who most benefit are Biology, Life Sciences, Medical and Anthropology students. Evolutionary theory and Biological Evolution are intrinsic to any biology curriculum.

 

[9Westy9]

Kind of difficult when the hypothesis is based on the lack of evidence.

Maybe it should teach a hypotheses, then show the evidence, and then show the varying viewpoints on it?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Science should be all about the evidence. after this is presented then various view points/ interpretations should be presented about the evidence.

And when it comes to the evidence for Evolution, the consensus about what the evidence means is overwhelming.
There are no competing interpretations to the Theory of Evolution.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Maybe it should teach a hypotheses, then show the evidence, and then show the varying viewpoints on it?

Scientific Theories are as close to knowing anything we have.
Thus teaching those Theories makes perfect sense, be it the the Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory or the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Panda]

Maybe it should teach a hypotheses, then show the evidence, and then show the varying viewpoints on it?

Would you argue the same for other scientific theories?

 

[9Westy9]

Would you argue the same for other scientific theories?

Of course

 

[9Westy9]

Scientific Theories are as close to knowing anything we have.
Thus teaching those Theories makes perfect sense, be it the the Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory or the Theory of Evolution.

Never said it should be restricted to just evolution.

 

[fenrisx]

Wasn't there some debate on whether to teach creationism or evolution in public schools? Science & Religion etc <><

separation of church and state, deal with it

 

[9Westy9]

And when it comes to the evidence for Evolution, the consensus about what the evidence means is overwhelming.
There are no competing interpretations to the Theory of Evolution.

That's fine. Of course there are people who disagree with it. I think people should be shown both viewpoints and why they hold the viewpoints. Then people can make there own decisions based on all the evidence and varying interpretations of it. As you can tell, I'm not very read up on Evolution past my high school learning

 

[McBell]

That's fine. Of course there are people who disagree with it. I think people should be shown both viewpoints and why they hold the viewpoints. Then people can make there own decisions based on all the evidence and varying interpretations of it. As you can tell, I'm not very read up on Evolution past my high school learning

And as soon as another scientific theory is presented to challenge the ToE, I am all for it being taught in science classes right alongside Evolution.

The thing is, Creationism is not a scientific theory.
Neither is Intelligent Design.
Being as they are NOT scientific theories, they have no business in a science class room.

 

[9Westy9]

And as soon as another scientific theory is presented to challenge the ToE, I am all for it being taught in science classes right alongside Evolution.

The thing is, Creationism is not a scientific theory.
Neither is Intelligent Design.
Being as they are NOT scientific theories, they have no business in a science class room.

Never said they were.

 

[McBell]

Never said they were.

Never said you said they were.

I am merely pointing out that not all view points are scientific theories and it is in science classes that creationists want creation/ID presented.

 

[Panda]

That's fine. Of course there are people who disagree with it. I think people should be shown both viewpoints and why they hold the viewpoints. Then people can make there own decisions based on all the evidence and varying interpretations of it. As you can tell, I'm not very read up on Evolution past my high school learning

But there aren't really two view points on evolution from a scientific frame. There is disagreements about particular details but they all agree about the same general principles.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's fine. Of course there are people who disagree with it. I think people should be shown both viewpoints and why they hold the viewpoints. Then people can make there own decisions based on all the evidence and varying interpretations of it. As you can tell, I'm not very read up on Evolution past my high school learning

And acknowledging what one does and does not know is admirable, but you should know that when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, the Atomic Theory and numerous other scientific Theories, there is no 'different viewpoint'.
These matters will be determined by scientists who have decades of education and research behind them and not some random person off the street.
And before you ask, ID proponents and Creationists are, for the record, considered random people off the street in this respect.
They are either utterly uneducated in the subjects they argue against, or their arguments have been completely destroyed and refuted time and time again.