As a fairly objective Jewish kid growing up in the North Shore school system, the question of Evolutionism and Creationism never crossed my mind. I come from a religion of progressives who often have a hand in scientific discovery, and my school never mentioned Creationism when I first learned evolutionary theory. However, outside my shelter, the rest of American education has been locked in a battle of science and religion for more than a century. Some think one or the other should be taught; others think both should be explained so that students can determine their own opinions. I think that only Evolution should be taught.
Author Jack Wellman (Monday #1) believes both theories should be taught, and he backs up his claim with the Constitution. Similarly, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell (Monday #3) mention that voters would like to see criticisms and alternatives available to students. I recognize that the First Amendment decrees we cannot refuse to teach either idea, and I see the merit in trying to be objective with both theories, but I side with the ideas expressed by MSNBC's Associated Press (Monday #2) and Craig E. Nelson (Monday #4.) The Associated Press makes the argument that as Intelligent Design, or Creationism, isn't a true science, it cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolutionism. To me, something that relies so heavily on religion is a far touchier subject to broach in a classroom than the stark objectivity of Evolutionism, and Craig Nelson agrees. Evolution should only be taught in the classroom because it is true science, Intelligent Design is too intertwined with religion and isn't true science, and less legal troubles are likely to come from Evolution than from Creationism.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #4
The final view comes from this article.
In an article by emeritus professor of biology Craig E. Nelson, he explains why Intelligent Design (or ID) should not be taught in schools. First, he identifies four major obstacles: it is "almost universally" recognized to not be science; to require it would be unconstitutional; legal entanglements will surely ensue if it is required; and to not emphasis the truth of Evolutionism would prove to be a disadvantage to future biologists. He continues with another more personal problem: how religion fits in. As an example, Nelson cites Michael Behe, a prominent biologist in support of ID; the biologist claims cells are too complex to have been formed by Evolution, but refuses to give a name to the intelligent force that supposedly did create them. In short, Nelson's point here is that the discussion of ID in a classroom environment has the potential to question the religious views of all students.
The critique of Behe's views continues with the recognition of an assumption Intelligent Design makes: that some aspects of organisms that appear not to have undergone Evolution will never be proved to have been through it. Nelson lists examples of proven "missing links" between organisms which once had no evolutionary explanation for their traits and suggests that if ID were taught, it too would have to address the ways in which complex structures form (as evolutionary theory already has.) The article concludes with the fact that if both ID and Evolution were taught, so too would critiques of both need to be heard; a critique of ID would most certainly seem an indirect attack on religion. Nelson says simply that he is in agreement with the teachers who refuse to bring their students' religious beliefs into the classroom.
(As for the post that used to be here... I was more than a little frustrated with myself for my lack of effort in your class - that was directed entirely at me, not you. I agree that it was inappropriate, and nothing of the sort will ever again be posted while I work on the Monday Matters project. I am very sorry.)
In an article by emeritus professor of biology Craig E. Nelson, he explains why Intelligent Design (or ID) should not be taught in schools. First, he identifies four major obstacles: it is "almost universally" recognized to not be science; to require it would be unconstitutional; legal entanglements will surely ensue if it is required; and to not emphasis the truth of Evolutionism would prove to be a disadvantage to future biologists. He continues with another more personal problem: how religion fits in. As an example, Nelson cites Michael Behe, a prominent biologist in support of ID; the biologist claims cells are too complex to have been formed by Evolution, but refuses to give a name to the intelligent force that supposedly did create them. In short, Nelson's point here is that the discussion of ID in a classroom environment has the potential to question the religious views of all students.
The critique of Behe's views continues with the recognition of an assumption Intelligent Design makes: that some aspects of organisms that appear not to have undergone Evolution will never be proved to have been through it. Nelson lists examples of proven "missing links" between organisms which once had no evolutionary explanation for their traits and suggests that if ID were taught, it too would have to address the ways in which complex structures form (as evolutionary theory already has.) The article concludes with the fact that if both ID and Evolution were taught, so too would critiques of both need to be heard; a critique of ID would most certainly seem an indirect attack on religion. Nelson says simply that he is in agreement with the teachers who refuse to bring their students' religious beliefs into the classroom.
(As for the post that used to be here... I was more than a little frustrated with myself for my lack of effort in your class - that was directed entirely at me, not you. I agree that it was inappropriate, and nothing of the sort will ever again be posted while I work on the Monday Matters project. I am very sorry.)
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #3
Oh, look! A link!
Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell discuss here reasons why critiques of Darwinism should be taught in schools. They begin by pointing out that the situation is a no-win: teaching Evolutionism may anger the religious; teaching Creationism will exhibit a disregard for Supreme Court rulings. When credible experts disagree on a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives. The authors call this "simply good education." Arguments for and against each should be presented objectively. To back the disagreements about Evolutionism, they cite fossil evidence which suggests a sudden appearance of stability in life forms (thus negating Darwin's "branching-out" idea,) and mention that some noted professors believe that there are indeed signs of Intelligent Design in creatures. Such ideas should be included in the curriculum because it's taken from science and not Scripture.
As well, the controversy should be taught because 1) it's supported by constitutional law, 2) No Child Left Behind requires it, and 3) polls show 70% of voters would like criticism to be taught.
Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell discuss here reasons why critiques of Darwinism should be taught in schools. They begin by pointing out that the situation is a no-win: teaching Evolutionism may anger the religious; teaching Creationism will exhibit a disregard for Supreme Court rulings. When credible experts disagree on a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives. The authors call this "simply good education." Arguments for and against each should be presented objectively. To back the disagreements about Evolutionism, they cite fossil evidence which suggests a sudden appearance of stability in life forms (thus negating Darwin's "branching-out" idea,) and mention that some noted professors believe that there are indeed signs of Intelligent Design in creatures. Such ideas should be included in the curriculum because it's taken from science and not Scripture.
As well, the controversy should be taught because 1) it's supported by constitutional law, 2) No Child Left Behind requires it, and 3) polls show 70% of voters would like criticism to be taught.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #2
The view is from this article.
In 2005, the Associated Press at MSNBC.com released an overview of a case in Pennsylvania in which the Dover Area School Board's decision to add Intelligent Design - essentially Creationism - to their curriculum. Intelligent Design is first defined as the idea "that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force." The public school claimed to want to "improve" scientific education with the teaching of this idea. But, this policy also required a statement to be read to all ninth graders about to study evolution: that "Darwin's theory is 'not a fact' and has inexplicable 'gaps.'" The judge shot the policy down, calling it was a veiled attempt to introduce religion in the classroom. Richard Thompson, the school board's lawyer, claimed they were merely protecting the religious freedoms of Christians and named this an ad hominem attack on scientists who also believe in G-d. The Associated Press ended the article with a fairly straightforward statement that Creationism is not a science: it is "flawed and illogical" and disregards centuries of scientific research. It is unconstitutional to teach it as an alternative to Evolutionism.
In 2005, the Associated Press at MSNBC.com released an overview of a case in Pennsylvania in which the Dover Area School Board's decision to add Intelligent Design - essentially Creationism - to their curriculum. Intelligent Design is first defined as the idea "that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force." The public school claimed to want to "improve" scientific education with the teaching of this idea. But, this policy also required a statement to be read to all ninth graders about to study evolution: that "Darwin's theory is 'not a fact' and has inexplicable 'gaps.'" The judge shot the policy down, calling it was a veiled attempt to introduce religion in the classroom. Richard Thompson, the school board's lawyer, claimed they were merely protecting the religious freedoms of Christians and named this an ad hominem attack on scientists who also believe in G-d. The Associated Press ended the article with a fairly straightforward statement that Creationism is not a science: it is "flawed and illogical" and disregards centuries of scientific research. It is unconstitutional to teach it as an alternative to Evolutionism.
Marking Period 2: Monday #1
The opinion was taken from this article. Despite its appearance on the Gale database, a cornucopia of grammatical errors suggests this source may not entirely credible (or perhaps he is lacking a discerning editor.)
Since Darwin's trip to the Galapagos Islands almost three centuries ago, the concept of Evolutionism has battled Creationism for recognition in the public eye. In particular, this debate today still rages in schools. Jack Wellman, an author who is also a Christian, wrote in 2010 that teaching Evolutionism in schools is not a violation of the separation of church and state, specifically in the context of court case Edwards v. Aguillard. Wellman begins with the statement that it was never mentioned in an official document that there should be a separation of church and state; rather, it was an idea of Jefferson's to counter England's style of government, in which the state was the church. He points out that the Supreme Court has made it clear we can't legally refuse to teach either theory. Directly quoting the First Amendment, "Congress cannot pass any law concerning a religion or establishing a religion; and cannot pass any law that prevents the free exercise of religion."
In Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, the case concerned Louisiana's "Creationism Act," which forbade the teaching of Evolutionism unless Creationism was taught as well. The District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed the act went against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, it was also announced a variety of ideas taught from a secular perspective in schools could enhance the effectiveness of the teaching of science and would allow students to form their own opinions, with which Wellman agrees. In short, Wellman thinks the Constitution guarantees Evolutionism is not a violation of church and state and that both theories would allow students to decide for themselves.
Since Darwin's trip to the Galapagos Islands almost three centuries ago, the concept of Evolutionism has battled Creationism for recognition in the public eye. In particular, this debate today still rages in schools. Jack Wellman, an author who is also a Christian, wrote in 2010 that teaching Evolutionism in schools is not a violation of the separation of church and state, specifically in the context of court case Edwards v. Aguillard. Wellman begins with the statement that it was never mentioned in an official document that there should be a separation of church and state; rather, it was an idea of Jefferson's to counter England's style of government, in which the state was the church. He points out that the Supreme Court has made it clear we can't legally refuse to teach either theory. Directly quoting the First Amendment, "Congress cannot pass any law concerning a religion or establishing a religion; and cannot pass any law that prevents the free exercise of religion."
In Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, the case concerned Louisiana's "Creationism Act," which forbade the teaching of Evolutionism unless Creationism was taught as well. The District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed the act went against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, it was also announced a variety of ideas taught from a secular perspective in schools could enhance the effectiveness of the teaching of science and would allow students to form their own opinions, with which Wellman agrees. In short, Wellman thinks the Constitution guarantees Evolutionism is not a violation of church and state and that both theories would allow students to decide for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)