Do you think that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in Seconday/High Schools?
I personally think that creationism should be taught in religious studies and evolution should be taught in science. I find evolution fascinating and although it is interesting to consider why people may not believe in evolution, it is important for pupils to understand the concept of evolution as a foundation for many biological topics.
Well I believe (but I'm not sure) that evolution is covered in Science (which is a compulsory subject at GCSE) but is not dealt with in detail until A-Level Biology.
I guess creationism is taught in Religious Studies but not every pupil takes this at GCSE. Maybe it depends on whether you go to a religious school or not.
The reason I pose the question is that Sarah Palin is allegedly a 'Creationist' and there are some groups, especially in America, who believe that creationism should be taught instead of evolution. Which in my book is a bit outrageous as it forces pupils to learn a 'belief' rather than a 'fact' whereas really they should be explained both and allowed to debate this and make their own decision as to what they believe.
I struggle with evolution being taught as flat-out, undeniable fact. As far as I understand, there are still a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of very competent scientists who take exception to this approach. I think we should teach what we do know and can support, but I don't think we should teach speculation. In particular I don't think the scientific community should bully other scientists who want to continue to explore this topic.
Another thing that buggs me is when textbooks use outdated and even inaccurate "evidence" stated as fact to support the hypothesis of evolution. Examples include the embryo drawings of different species, Stanley's atmospheric synthesis of amino acids, finch beaks (good example of microevolution - changes within a species), and the general ignoring of the Cambrian level (at least in most text books). Is this a closed topic??
The big question is why is science threatened by continued research on this topic? I, for one, do not consider it a fact.
Your post states some interesting points, especially that there are further avenues to be explored in natural history other than evolution. However, as with all science, the accepted truth is only the hypothesis with the most supporting evidence - which in this case is evolution. Surely we should be teaching our children the most likely scientific fact (as we do with all other areas of science) rather than bowing to pressure from Faith Groups and teaching something which is supported by much less (if any) evidence?
I would argue that nothing in science is a 'closed topic' but at Secondary school level, pupils are not expected to critically analyse scientific evidence to the extent that a University student would and for pupils to gain a basic understanding of science, certain well though-out theories must be taught before pupils develop the skills to question hypotheses.
I would be very interested to read your non-evolution based theories on the of the development of man.
I agree that nothing should be 'off limits' in science, but I think ur spot on that we need to teach kids the theories that are supported with the best evidence.
If schools are going to teach Christian theories of creation, then surely they should teach the creation beliefs of other religions too.
I know some folk believe that a belief in evolutionary biology is a denial of the existence of a god, but I don't think that is necessarily the case - for this reason, there are many scientists with very strong religious beliefs.
There is some good discussion going on here in this forum. With one notable exception (Randy) no offence intended... This is what I am talking about, the topic should NOT be closed for evaluation by scientific minds of all levels. Please, people, let us abandon the name calling and finger pointing. I am not a nutcase, and neither is anyone who is looking for an answer. It's all about inquiry.
Ostracising accomplished scientists (such as Guillermo Gonzales) because they suggest there may be more than meets the eyes is simply inappropriate in circles where open inquiry should be encouraged. Even some of our most brilliant physicists are disturbed by the number of coincidences necessary for matter to work, and that problem extends into the life sciences, physical sciences, earth sciences, and we won't even talk about neurology or psychology.
This is my gripe - that the evolutionary proponents are quitting the search too early, and pushing a dogma that is similar in approach to medieval Christianity's approach. The irony should be noted.
I don't recall stating that I have a hypothesis on what really did happen as far as man's appearance on the scene. So if you are curious what I think, I am still thinking about it. And I think (yes I do) that we should ALL still be thinking about it. I don't have nearly enough information to make any proposal whatsoever. Having studied Geology as an undergrad, I am aware of the conflict between traditional biblical creationism and what science describes as the time scales involved.
I do find it interesting though, that all matter on an atomic level is simply an expression of energy: E=MC2. If I were to make any religious correlation at all, the first thing God said was, "Let there be light". Sounds like the big bang to me. Coincidence?
I agree there's some good chat going on this topic (perhaps randy's not having a good day ). Topical too as it's the 150 year anniversary of On the Origin of the Species/200 yr anniversary of Darwin's birth!
Having said that, for me ,evolution is as close to a scientific 'fact' as we have. I think too that the natural world is so amazing that it is hard to believe that it was created by coincidence - but i don't think this means there must necessarily be a creator. The idea that something so awesome as our planet could be created by a series of coincidences is surely the most amazing, mind-boggling 'miracle' of all?! .
I think you're dead right that we must never stop questioning, but i think that's what most scientists do (see guardian article again). I don't agree though that evo proponents are pushing a dogma similar to medieval Christianity: the Christian dogma was based purely on faith with no 'evidence', whereas there is plenty of compelling evidence for evolution.
There are 18 pages of scientists, Phd and above who dissagree. And these are only the ones with the guts to sign their names. Do you realize that the Darwin believers are regularly ostracizing scientists for merely engaging in this debate?
History is full of examples where the generally accepted viewpoint turned out to be wrong. It is a dangerous thing when we allow others to do the thinking for us.
Hello, I'm studying medicin in eastern europe, roumania actually...we've studied cell biology and we talked about univers's originis..and they didnt give us a path...they gave as the freedom to choose the way we think the univers appeared. Me, personaly, I am christian, I strongly believe that God gave birth to this Universe, but what can I say?everyone is free to believe...I study medicin and I wonder how can people see the complexity of the human body and think it is random? I just wonder...how can anyone think of the whole univers as a boom result?anyway..i dont wanna judge and i sure dont want to start a conflict on this page...