Plan to Require Evolution To Be Taught in Schools
By John Chambliss
The Ledger

http://www.theledger.com/article/200710 ... 40475/1039

LAKELAND | For the first time, standards in science have been written that would require Florida public-school students be taught about evolution.

The new standards released last week say that evolution will be taught beginning in the third grade. Current standards do not use the word evolution, preferring the term "biological changes over time".

The state Department of Education is expected to approve the new standards in January.

The proposal will likely fuel a backlash from those who believe in intelligent design, the idea that life began as a result of an intelligent force or being. The new science standards exclude intelligent design.

Evolutionary science says life, including plants, animals and humans, developed through a series of small changes over very long periods of time. The theory conflicts with the biblical interpretation of the Earth's creation and is strongly opposed by many conservative Christians.

I'm sorry but how exactly do you teach kids biology without teaching them about evolution?

That is a really good question. I don't know the exact numbers, but the public education system in the United States is rated very low when compared to other developed nations. I think the power and influence of religion is having a negative impact on science literacy in the US. There is a constant battle between religion and science as to what is taught and how it is taught.

Chris OConnor wrote:I don't know the exact numbers, but the public education system in the United States is rated very low when compared to other developed nations.

I'd be more interested to know how science is being taught in other nations, and to whom.

The sheer fact of the matter is, most students in the U.S. don't have much use for a thorough education in science. The science education they do receive doesn't much pertain to their day-to-day experience, and unless they're entering a science-related occupation, they don't need much more than the basics pertaining to health and the use of commonly available technology.

How many Americans actually need to know what the Bohrs model of an atom looks like? How much use does a well-educated American get out of their knowledge of evolution if they're not working in the biology field? If there was more of a need for scientific education, then you can bet that the American educational system would get more competitive.

Do we really want education to be about need though? Sure, you can get by just fine without knowledge of Shakespeare, evolution, Aristotle and Napoleon, but surely, an education should involve more than moulding an individual into some sort of product to be consumed by industry?

Niall001 wrote:Do we really want education to be about need though?

Compulsory education? Yes. Otherwise, how do you decide what gets taught and what doesn't? How do you decide how the government gets to spend my time (as a student), my money (as a taxpayer), what they get to force down my throat?

Sure, you can get by just fine without knowledge of Shakespeare, evolution, Aristotle and Napoleon, but surely, an education should involve more than moulding an individual into some sort of product to be consumed by industry?

I'm as big an advocate of education as a means to self-improvement as anyone, but I don't think compulsory education can manage that. To get more than a set of necessary survival skills out of education, you have to want to that something more. That something more is better reserved for a person's voluntary education. Compulsory education can provide some hint at what's possible, can give you the most basic skills for persuing those possibilities, but to expect it to provide it is, I think, n

Sure, you can get by just fine without knowledge of Shakespeare, evolution, Aristotle and Napoleon, but surely, an education should involve more than moulding an individual into some sort of product to be consumed by industry?

Well said, Niall!

It also worth noting that even if we accept the idea that public education should be "need" oriented, there is very definitely a need for the citizens of a democratic republic to have some understanding of the basics of science.

We are called on to elect representatives and vote on issues that often involve decisions that have to do with scientific questions. While it may be true that citizens do not need to have a grasp of the details of every scientific discipline, I think it's also true that citizens need to have some basis on which to evaluate the matters placed before them.

Some of the most serious questions we may need to deal with in the years ahead have to do with environmental and health issues. An electorate that is ignorant of the basics of biology, and nothing in that discipline is more basic than evolution, is easy prey for self-styled "experts" who may or may not know what they are talking about.

In a very real sense, we need an electorate that has, at least, an understanding of the basics of science.

George

I think a better reason to teach some form of science in public schools is the need for some basis for judging the sheer bulk of scientific argument that is thrown at the public every day -- and not in terms of how to vote, but simply in terms of how to behave for one's own beneft. But if that's the case, then the instrument of scientific education isn't really suited to the purpose. Modern scientific education was developed according to Cold War policy that envisioned the goal as that of producing a competitive scienctific industry -- one that could compete, that is, against the scientific industry of our economic and military rivals. Our educational system, at least so far as science is concerned, is geared towards producing capable scientists. It is not geared, it seems to me, towards producing laypersons who are capable of assessing scientific information and its impact on their lives.

There's no better evidence for this than the way in which public behavior swings from pole to pole everytime some new soundbyte passes into the public radar. Knowing the principles of evolution doesn't do much to prepare the public to deal with debate over, say, stem cell research, or the effects of high frctose corn syrup on human metabolism. So, to my mind, it doesn't much matter that third graders aren't being taught Darwinian evolution. That there is a consensus among practicing scientists demonstrates that those who pursue scientific careers are being taught evolutionary theory in a thoroughgoing way, and the benefit of that knowledge for those who never pursue a scientific career is, in the vast majority of cases, negligible.

It would be better if we were devoting those resources to teaching third graders information they could use in their day to day life. For example, a more comprehensive and thorough explanation of how the body sustains itself would go a long way towards ameliorating American health care problems and improving the general lot of American citizens. Armed with a firmer knowledge of under what conditions their bodies work best and how to prevent malfunctions, many Americans would probably be less reliant on a medical system that treats rather than prevents disease and injury. And while we're at it, a basic sense of how scientific information can practically improve a person's life would likely go a long way towards sparking people's curiosity about evolution. But again, whether or not it does is pretty much beside the point. Knowing about evolution doesn't do most people near as much good as would knowing what your kidneys do and how.

Which brings us to the question of why some people are so eager to have children taught evolution. Why aren't more people demanding that we have a more thorough grade school education on the topic of digestion, or that high school chemistry classes teach about how household chemicals interact with our immediate environment? To bring the discussion back to the personal level, why do I -- someone who's been through the public education system, not to mention secondary education in a reputable private school -- have to find all of this information on my own after my official education has drawn to a close? Why do we have a educational system that practically guarantees that most people will never come into contact with this information, and that, even if they do, they'll be virtually incapable of assessing it?

Personally, I fail to see what it will benefit them to know the mechanism by which speciation occurs when their health deteriorates or they're displaced by someone with a better grasp of how new technology impacts their career. And if we only have the time and resources to teach one or the other, then I say reserve evolutionary theory for those who will actually make use of it and concentrate teaching the majority skills and information that will make a practical difference on their lives.

In general I agree with MadArchitect that there needs to be more concentration on skills for living in our public education system. However, I must say that one of the most valuable things from my own public education was an understanding of the scientific method and of how it differed from dogma. Perhaps critical thinking is also a life skill. And to this day I have holes (which I sproradically attempt to fill) in my understanding of some quite basic concepts thanks to skipping high school chemistry and physics.