Truly critical analysis of evolution requires a thorough understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, and mathematics at the graduate level or above. There is absolutely no point in saying "some scientists believe organisms evolve over time, and some scientists don't" because it imparts absolutely nothing to a child's education. They have no way to grasp the arguments on both sides, and simply have to trust one side or the other without evidence of which can present the stronger argument.
This perfectly illustrates my viewpoint. Evolution, as it is widely taught in schools, is simply taught to students as fact. Unfortunately, as you stated, the students do not have the graduate level understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, or mathematics. They are unable to discern for themselves and, as you stated, simply have to trust one side or the other. Where I disagree with you is that there is "no point in saying 'some scientists believe organisms evolve over time, and some scientists don't'" Because the students can not yet rigorously discern for themselves, they should at least know that it is not fact, and that some scientists disagree.
It would be akin to teaching history by saying "here, read all these personal diaries, anecdotes, pamphlets, and advertisements from a long time ago and try to figure out what was really going on. By the way, we're not going to tell you what the majority of historians think actually happened."
I am not saying that we cannot say what the "majority of historians think actually happened", but on an issue as controversial as evolution, I think that teachers should be allowed to say that there is another viewpoint. That evolution is not certain -- and it isn't! I think that teachers should be allowed to point out that there are many important questions concerning evolution that are unanswered and possibly unanswerable. The thing is, evolution has more holes and unexplained mechanisms than any other field of science that is taught in high school or below (which is what we are talking about here). I know people are going to hate me saying that, so let me give some examples:
(1) The mechanisms necessary for evolution to occur as it is claimed have never been demonstrated. I'm not talking about natural selection or speciation. Those are perfectly good science. They are observable, testable, and repeatable, with predictive power. But we have never observed large changes. We have never observed something like ape to human evolution. And neither is this in the scope of observational science. These alleged changes take millions of years. The claim that speciation and natural selection can be responsible for changes of this magnitude is simply not testable. The fossil record fails to be convincing here as well; see articles
here and
here. While it is a nice theory, it is simply not supported by data. The problem lies in presuppositions. When an evolution-believing scientist finds a fossil, he asks the question: "How can this be explained in light of evolution?" But this may be the wrong question to ask. I submit that he should instead ask "How can the past be explained in light of this fossil?". The first question tries to make sense of data given a theory, and the second question tries to make sense of a theory given data.
(2) This is related to (1). I fail to see by what mechanism the ordering and increasing of information occurs. This has not been observed. See this
paper. It's a bit long, but I would recommend skimming through it.
(3) Evolution as it is taught in schools is almost always coupled with abiogenesis. At the very least, I would request that this be removed from schools. This has never been observed, and any ideas about how it could have happened are nothing more than conjecture. That it occurred naturally is nothing more than conjecture, and yet it is taught to our children as fact.
That's not to say that questions are wrong, but the questions need to be at the level children can understand and evaluate. Teach physical science and practical biology and physiology before evolution, with an emphasis on performing experiments to determine the correctness of theories. With that background, children will be much better prepared to encounter evolution and creationism. What do you think most children trained like this would think when they experimentally verify speciation for themselves?
I agree with you. Children should be taught background before evolution. And when they do study speciation, I suspect that they will be able to verify that it works. However, I hope that they will also realize that speciation may not be able to account for the alleged transformations put forth by evolutionists.
Newton did not know how light worked. Until the early 20th century it was quite mysterious
Of course he didn't. I believe what I said was "he did quite a bit of work on light," which is precisely true. I did not say he knew exactly how it worked, and neither do we.
We still do not perfectly understand light, but that's the eternal nature of science to always approach better understanding.
I agree with you there.
Evolution explains *how* life has grown and prospered, but has no philosophical or religious implications beyond what individuals give it. Promoters of creationism want their "why" included in the classroom. They have no scientifically supported "how".
I have to disagree on both counts: (1) that evolution explains *how* life has grown and prospered, and (2) that it has no philosophical or religious implications beyond what individuals give it. I have already discussed my reasons for disagreeing on (1). Let's talk about (2). Of course evolution has religious implications. Christianity for example, which is the dominant religion in the US, is founded on the Bible. Evolution contradicts the Bible. People who think that Evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other simply do not know the Bible well. They do contradict each other. I would also disagree with your use of why's and how's. Creationists want their how's in the classroom, not their why's. I think most creationists would settle for simply not having the how's of evolution force fed to children. You are right that Creationists have no scientifically supported "how". Their "how" is supernatural in nature, and while equally valid, cannot be completely substantiated by science (although evidence can, and I believe does, point toward it).
Anyways, I went on about this for much longer than I wanted to. Unfortunately I wont be able to continue this discussion; as a grad student with several paper deadlines I am finding myself very busy, so I wont be replying anymore. But I'll let you have the last word in our discussion if you like; I'll still read it.
God bless.
