Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

I think the primary need is to teach good science, which means that students
need to be taught some basic principals beyond a dry recitation of facts.
Because the young-earthers and anti-evolutionists are intent on getting
their views into the class room as science, it behooves science educators to
directly address some of their arguments--especially the misleading ones.

For instance, the scientific meaning of "uniformitism" (i.e., that the same
physics & chemical phenomena at work today operated in the past, albeit
varying in rates & frequency) should be contrasted with what the
young-earther's claim it means (i.e., that everything took a long time to
occur, a definition harking back to the time of 'neptunism' versus
'plutonism').

Or the often repeated "lack of transitional fossils". Everyone knows the
fossil record has it's limitations, but the fact is that in spite of the
limitations, scientists continue to find fossils of the right age & strata
that fit into the gaps between previously discovered fossils. (E.g., fish
with 11 fingers, amphibians with gill arches, and all the new whale species
of the last few decades).

We also need to focus on the big picture as well. For instance, the
remarkable fits between phylogies derived from cladistics & from genetic
analyses. Or the fact that closely related families of creatures appear in
the fossil record at points consistent with member species evolving into
other member species. (Like elephants, or horses).

I can think of a few examples of similar sophistry from "Of Pandas and
People".

I reckon that not a few school boards would prohibit directly teaching the
flaws of creationism, but textbooks and teachers really need to distinguish
between the scientific basis of geology & evolution, in light of the way it
is misrepresented and twisted by creationists. But by emphasizing the
positive (e.g., what uniformatism actually means), it should take some of
the wind out the creationist sails.

Indeed, why shouldn't science teachers just take a lesson or two to discuss
creationsist claims in light of the actual geologic & evolutionary data?
(E.g., lay out & contrast the definitions of uniformatism, the
interpretations of the cytochrome C data, etc.) I can't imagine that the
creationists would stand for such an objective presentation.....

Dennis Sweitzer
 <;;> \|/ * -;=;> -;=;o ><> >;;<> <;:;:;:;:;:;o
"The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what
to think--rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for
ourselves, than to load the memory with thoughts of other men." -- Bill
Beattie
o;=;- <;=;- <;;> -;:;:;:;:;> --=====o <;=;-

In Reply to:
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:49:28 -0500
> From: Stephanie Burke <smburke@orion.naz.edu>
> Subject: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...
>
> I am interested in soliciting opinions from ASA membership regarding the
> teaching of evolution vs. creation science/creationism in American public
> schools. Some questions to consider...
>
> As "scientists teaching in the Christian perspective" how do you personally
> handle teaching evolution, which most view as being in direct opposition to
> the origins of life as outlined by the Bible?
>
> What SHOULD be taught in public schools? Creationism? Evolution? Or a
> combination of both?
>
> Is there a way to present creationism in a non-biased, non-partisan way which
> will not be misinterpreted by public school administration as forcing certain
> religious views upon students?
>
> Is it a violation of the First Amendment to teach creationism in
> governmentally funded public schools? Do you view this as an issue of the
> "separation of church and state?"
>
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated... thanks...
>
> ------------------------------
> I am neither a scientist nor an American but this is my take fwiw:
>
> Evolutionary theory is science. Regardless of whether you think it is good or
> bad science it remains science. Creationism is a world view that explains the
> universe (creation) but is not science. Therefore science class shoulod teach
> science and religious education and/or social studies should teach religious
> views.
>
> Iain (Wilson not Strachan)
>
> - --
Received on Wed Mar 16 16:45:59 2005