Teaching science in schools

[1HuskrFan]

My whole view on education and how things should be taught is that you should present as many different "disciplined" theories (including areas such as creationism) as possible and then let the students explore those theories and figure out which one they agree with the most. For example, there are many different areas in psychology all of which have some usefulness in explaining behavior: developmental, cognitive, social, perhaps even abnormal. All of these different views contribute an important piece of the puzzle. Excluding one blurs the picture. And including every perspective but biasing as much as possible one side isn't any better.

 

That the state of Texas has allowed this to go on goes to show just how "backwards" Texas really is. I'm sure there is a fair amount of people living in Texas who are level-headed and see things through an integrated perspective. But they don't have the power. The people who have the power in Texas have a strong-religious based background and do their best to exclude any scientific discussion. Why do they have the power? Because people vote for them. They must agree with their platform to the extent that they believe this person is best suited to run our state. That same concept holds true for the parents of the children in those charter schools. They [the parents] have to know what their child is learning about and how their child is learning, and they must sit down at night and think, "this is best for my child." I think it's unfortunate, because it limits what that child will be able to do with their career, especially if they have an interest in anything scientific (which, guess what, a majority of areas are nowadays). You're not going to go into an engineering career, explain something by saying, "God did this," and gain immediate credibility. Heck, you won't even get the job.

 

It's too bad that Texas caps its charter school limit at 300 and then allows charter schools such as those mentioned in the article to flourish.

 

If you want to teach religion class in public schools, fine. Do it. Teach a class on ALL of the major religions. But don't dare imply that there is any sort of scientific evidence supporting creationism by teaching it in a science class. Letting people decide which theory they like best is not how teaching works. You teach what the evidence tells you.

 

I think you're reading into something which I am not trying to say. I wouldn't want people to choose a theory because, "it has nice shiny colors." You do teach what the evidence tells you. That works for rigid areas such as evolution. There isn't much disagreeing with evolution because there is solid, hard evidence that species aren't the same now as they were millions of years ago. Or math; there's no disagreeing with 2+2=4 because...well...it equals 4.

 

And I suppose that's the majority of what is taught from K-12. I've been in college too long, and have been taking a lot of classes which can explain one thing in 5 different ways. I'll go back to my psychology example. A person is unsettled with her job. A cognitive psychologist could look at it and say she is unsettled because her behaviors and her thoughts don't match up. She's a secretary, but really wanted to be a teacher. But a social psychologist could take that very same scenario and talk about some sort of interaction between her and an aspect of the environment around her. Then again, you really have to know both (and more). I guess it's more of a, "this rule doesn't always apply" kind of thing--stuff that I've been dealing with a lot so it's kind of seeped into my head.

 

I'm never going to be a teacher; so if how I view this whole education stuff isn't right, no harm no foul. There's plenty of other people who know how and want to teach instead

Your math is correct 2+2=4, however your use of math to justify evolution, would have to also deny the math you refer to. Evolution has to have a beginning or a starting point. Evolution teaches us time had a beginning therefore, It had to begin with nothing, 0. The math I was taught is 0x?=0. Mathmatically, evolution couldn't have just happened, yet according to the math we use to justify those claims it can. hmmmm Your argument is weak in all aspects indicating evolution as hard fact. When in fact there are no facts that support those claims. When a person denies intelligent design at the cellular level of dna, then logic and reason escapes them.

[carlfense]

When a person denies intelligent design at the cellular level of dna, then logic and reason escapes them.

[The Dude]

Except, he used math to justify . . . math.

[tschu]

Your math is correct 2+2=4, however your use of math to justify evolution, would have to also deny the math you refer to. Evolution has to have a beginning or a starting point. Evolution teaches us time had a beginning therefore, It had to begin with nothing, 0. The math I was taught is 0x?=0. Mathmatically, evolution couldn't have just happened, yet according to the math we use to justify those claims it can. hmmmm Your argument is weak in all aspects indicating evolution as hard fact. When in fact there are no facts that support those claims. When a person denies intelligent design at the cellular level of dna, then logic and reason escapes them.

oh boy

[Landlord]

Your math is correct 2+2=4, however your use of math to justify evolution, would have to also deny the math you refer to. Evolution has to have a beginning or a starting point. Evolution teaches us time had a beginning therefore, It had to begin with nothing, 0. The math I was taught is 0x?=0. Mathmatically, evolution couldn't have just happened, yet according to the math we use to justify those claims it can. hmmmm Your argument is weak in all aspects indicating evolution as hard fact. When in fact there are no facts that support those claims. When a person denies intelligent design at the cellular level of dna, then logic and reason escapes them.

 

 

[zoogs]

Thanks for participating 1Husk, and I'll say this as gently as I can, but you did not learn math or science correctly. It's not too late, though.

[ZRod]

The math I was taught is 0x?=0.

0x(1/0) is undefined, just saying.

[zoogs]

The math I was taught is 0x?=0.

0x0 is undefined, just saying.

 

Ouch, man...! That's a 15-yard penalty.

[ZRod]

The math I was taught is 0x?=0.

0x0 is undefined, just saying.

 

Ouch, man...! That's a 15-yard penalty.

oh, f#*k me!

 

I fixed it to what I meant.

[Whistlebritches]

Your math is correct 2+2=4, however your use of math to justify evolution, would have to also deny the math you refer to. Evolution has to have a beginning or a starting point. Evolution teaches us time had a beginning therefore, It had to begin with nothing, 0. The math I was taught is 0x?=0. Mathmatically, evolution couldn't have just happened, yet according to the math we use to justify those claims it can. hmmmm Your argument is weak in all aspects indicating evolution as hard fact. When in fact there are no facts that support those claims. When a person denies intelligent design at the cellular level of dna, then logic and reason escapes them.

oh boy

 

I like how evolution and origin of life are apparently interchangeable terms even though they are not at all the same thing.

[C N Red]

Being a former science teacher and a Christian this debate always makes me just shake my head. Evolution is the most misunderstood theory in the world be it creationist or evolutionists.

 

Evolution defined is the change in genetic material over time due to mutations within that genetic material. That is a fact that can not be debated. No scientist Christian or otherwise would ever debate this.

 

Too many Christian take the bible as a literal work when discussions of the creation are concerned and they worry entirely too much about whether it took 7 days to create the Earth or if it took 7 billion years. The bible is full of metaphors and stories that are used to explain things, especially the old testament.

 

Very well said. I believe in creationism with evolutionary changes and feel its fine and i know many others that do as well. God created life but life will evolve and adapt as necessary. I guess, in the end i really dont care what anyone else thinks and i will continue to believe what i feel is true.

 

I dont think Evolutionist theory or creationist theory should be "taught" in public school but i believe both should be mentioned and "talked" about. Evolutionist theory and evolution are two different things. Evolution's definition is just used and to explain the theory but it doesnt prove the theory right, otherwise it wouldnt be a theory.

 

Now, I do think evolution in its definition, as NUinID explains above, should be taught in school. Not as the evolutionist theory explanation to the point of we all came from a single celled organism type of way, but as to the definition of evolution type of way where life evolves and adapts with environment, etc.

 

And i feel creationism can be taught by the religions, churches, etc outside of public school. Now if the school is associated with religion then i feel its fine to teach it b/c those are non public schools and if you send your kids there you know what they stand for and most would expect it.

[tschu]

Your math is correct 2+2=4, however your use of math to justify evolution, would have to also deny the math you refer to. Evolution has to have a beginning or a starting point. Evolution teaches us time had a beginning therefore, It had to begin with nothing, 0. The math I was taught is 0x?=0. Mathmatically, evolution couldn't have just happened, yet according to the math we use to justify those claims it can. hmmmm Your argument is weak in all aspects indicating evolution as hard fact. When in fact there are no facts that support those claims. When a person denies intelligent design at the cellular level of dna, then logic and reason escapes them.

oh boy

 

I like how evolution and origin of life are apparently interchangeable terms even though they are not at all the same thing.

Haha. I especially liked the part where essentially nothing he said was true. Other than 2+2=4. That was about it.

[Husker_x]

Being a former science teacher and a Christian this debate always makes me just shake my head. Evolution is the most misunderstood theory in the world be it creationist or evolutionists.

 

Evolution defined is the change in genetic material over time due to mutations within that genetic material. That is a fact that can not be debated. No scientist Christian or otherwise would ever debate this.

 

Too many Christian take the bible as a literal work when discussions of the creation are concerned and they worry entirely too much about whether it took 7 days to create the Earth or if it took 7 billion years. The bible is full of metaphors and stories that are used to explain things, especially the old testament.

 

Very well said. I believe in creationism with evolutionary changes and feel its fine and i know many others that do as well. God created life but life will evolve and adapt as necessary. I guess, in the end i really dont care what anyone else thinks and i will continue to believe what i feel is true.

 

I dont think Evolutionist theory or creationist theory should be "taught" in public school but i believe both should be mentioned and "talked" about. Evolutionist theory and evolution are two different things. Evolution's definition is just used and to explain the theory but it doesnt prove the theory right, otherwise it wouldnt be a theory.

 

Now, I do think evolution in its definition, as NUinID explains above, should be taught in school. Not as the evolutionist theory explanation to the point of we all came from a single celled organism type of way, but as to the definition of evolution type of way where life evolves and adapts with environment, etc.

 

And i feel creationism can be taught by the religions, churches, etc outside of public school. Now if the school is associated with religion then i feel its fine to teach it b/c those are non public schools and if you send your kids there you know what they stand for and most would expect it.

 

Can you please elaborate on what the difference between 'evolutionist theory' and 'evolution.' My understanding of it is that when people say something to the effect of "Evolution explains the diversity of life on our planet" it is synonymous with "The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on our planet."

 

Abiogenesis is the realm of investigation that deals with the origin of life, which is a completely separate topic. Creationists like to pretend they're the same thing.

[tschu]

Evolutionist theory and evolution are two different things. Evolution's definition is just used and to explain the theory but it doesnt prove the theory right, otherwise it wouldnt be a theory.

Clearly science education has failed you as well.

[tschu]

I hate that I even have to do this, but here goes.

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. That does not mean that it is still up for grabs or has yet to be proven. Many people have a misconception that a theory is unproven and once it is "proven" it becomes a law. FALSE. A scientific law is just a generalized description of a series of observations. "Objects fall towards other objects" = law of gravity, and so on. This differs from a theory. A theory is a collection of hypotheses that attempts to explain an observed phenomena. Both laws and theories can be disproven at any time by evidence that contradicts them. Evolution has basically no evidence against it and its hypotheses have been unequivocally supported for 150 years. "Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution" are used synonymously, because, well, they essentially describe the same thing. And neither laws nor theories can ever be proven. They can only be supported or disproven.

 

Evolution is not up for grabs. It is not an issue that is out there for you to either "believe" or "not believe." It is universally accepted by the scientific community and has been supported with mountains of evidence. Not teaching evolution in schools is the equivalent of not teaching algebra or gravity or human anatomy.

 

Creationism is not a theory. It is an idea, a religious construct, a fantasy, you name it. It has no basis in science, it has no supporting evidence whatsoever - and it likely will never have any supporting evidence because it is not testable. If religious schools want to teach it, fine. That's their right. But public schools have no business even mentioning something that isn't even considered to be a part of the realm of science.

 

Evolution does not in any way shape or form attempt to explain how life began. It is a theory of how allele frequencies change over time. It explains change in populations, speciation, sexual dimorphism, basically anything you can imagine. But it does not touch on the beginning of life. This is not a loophole or some problem with the theory, however. That would be like saying that the law of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain how the universe began.

 

There are plenty of abiogenesis theories, and plenty of them are plausible. Can they be supported? Yes. Have they been supported yet? Not much, but there have been experiments that show certain things are quite possible. But a simple self-replicating strand of genetic material is not exactly a complicated piece of molecular machinery in its most basic form. It's an interesting question and obviously is one of the biggest scientific questions that exists right now. The difference between abiogenesis theories and creationist theory is that abiogenesis has its basis in science - these are theories based on physics, chemistry, geology, and probability. Not on religious fantasy.

 

As far as this: "Not as the evolutionist theory explanation to the point of we all came from a single celled organism type of way, but as to the definition of evolution type of way where life evolves and adapts with environment, etc." - again, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the theory you like and don't like. Theory states, and is supported by DNA evidence, that all life likely shared a common single-cell ancestor. It is not up for belief, and actively choosing to not teach something that you don't like is wrong on a philosophical level and actively perpetuates ignorance.

 

Anyway, ideally, science classes should teach students to think critically about the evidence for themselves so that each student can independently come to the conclusion that evolution is an incredibly well supported theory that perfectly explains the biodiversity on earth today. It is the cornerstone of basically everything in the world of biology. It is hugely important on a level that I can't begin to describe.