French schools spammed with anti-evolution books

I'll just jump right in, here, and say that, as a high school science teacher, I have two major problems with evolution being taught in science classes. I'm not interested in getting into whether or not a person "believes" evolution; each person should be able to make up their own mind, and THAT'S what I have a problem with in our system of education.

1. Man's definition of science is "man's observation of the physical world". Since there are no direct observations of how the world began, whatever one chooses to believe about how the world came about *must* be accepted by faith. Therefore, it doesn't need to be taught in science classes.

2. Science also involves looking at all of the information presented and deducing the best-fit answer to the situation. Why don't we do that for our students, even if it's just at the university level? Why don't we present them with all of the theories out there and let them decide for themselves? Instead, we treat them like they can't make up their own minds and force-feed them only one theory. Great science and great education our youth are getting in that situation there.

Reply

I am not ashamed to have a monkey for my ancestor; but I would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth.
--

It's not actually what Thomas Huxley said in reply to Samuel Wilberforce, but it captures the essence of the moment. Harun Yahya has fallen prey to the same fallacies that "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce did.

*All* fundamentalist religions need to get over it. That evolution has happened (and is happening) is a *fact*. The Theory of Evolution is the best established explanation for how. I won't attempt to speak for the contents of the Koran, but those who would place great emphasis on 5 leaves of the Bible and ignore the message in the other 600 to 700 pages should get over it.

Reply

Rachel May... Do you allow your students to decide if the Earth is round or flat? Is gravity universal? Do they get to decide if they beleive the Laws of Thermodynamics? Do they get to decide whether or not to accept ages of rocks dervied from radioisotope dating? Do you suggest some "alternative" explanation for the cosmic background radiation?

Where do you draw the line between fact and conjecture? As new observations are made, do you shift that line? Fifty years ago, would you ahve labeled atoms as being conjecture, but not now tha they've been imaged with scanning tunneling microscopes, or was the evidence then sufficient to establish their existence at that time?

Yes, it is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Reply

Do you allow your students to decide if the Earth is round or flat? Yes: I show them pictures of a round earth taken from space. They make up their own minds.

Is gravity universal? Yes: they can do research to see if it has been defied anywhere

Do they get to decide if they beleive the Laws of Thermodynamics? Yes: The second of which, by the way, directly contradicts evolution. It states that systems move toward chaos witout outside intervention while the theory of evolution predicts a movement toward higher order/intelligence.

Do they get to decide whether or not to accept ages of rocks dervied from radioisotope dating? Yes: we discuss this in detail

Do you suggest some "alternative" explanation for the cosmic background radiation? No, because I don't teach astronomy

I'm not afraid to talk to you about this, Mr/Mrs. Heydt. As soon as you can show me a photograph/video of macroevolution in progress, I'll believe it. I don't doubt that microevolution occurs (i.e. the famous moths, human population getting taller in the U.S., etc), but I don't see the evidence for macroevolution.

All I see are a bunch of dots that can be connected in many ways. Evolutionists choose their way, and I choose mine.

How much time have you put into investigating the Christian viewpoint of creation? Probably not nearly as long as I was force-fed evolution (4 years in high school and five more in college, with four more years of teaching in a public high school until I got fed up with it). I recommend The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.

Try being a bit more open-minded, yourself.

Reply

Why are so many people afraid to tell kids that there are two (or actually more) competing theories out there?

Especially since they are going to hear it anyway, from their parents, churches, literature, etc. If we don't allow discussion about evolution vs. creationism (or intelligent design), many kids will just disregard the information about evolution and perhaps lose faith in other things taught in science class.

Working through multiple possibilities is the essence of science. And productive scientific discussion requires the humility to recognize that scientists' knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg.

Even if 99.99% of all scientists believe evolution is the most accurate of the competing theories, what great harm will it do to tell kids there is more than one? This is not a national health or security issue, folks. Most of us would be just as successful in life today whether we believed our ancient ancestors were gods, men, apes, or Martians.

Do people really think that exposure to alternative views makes children dumber than blindly learning just one view? That is a very scary thought.

Reply

SKL, that is exactly my thought. Not allowing people to discuss alternative theories is a very, very scary thought.

FWIW, at the Christian school where I teach, we discuss evolution *in detail*. And, no, it's not a "this-is-why-evolution-is-a-threat-to-our-beliefs" type of discussion. It's an honest, open, question-and-research discussion. Which can't happen in a public school. Sad, isn't it? And people wonder why kids are graduating from public schools dumber than dirt. It's because we don't allow them to practice their critical thinking skills. We just force-feed them one theory.

In some places, that's called brainwashing.

Reply

Furthermore, people like Mr/Mrs Heydt *would* call it brainwashing if I taught *only* the creationist viewpoint in my classes.

Yet, it's perfectly acceptable to do that with evolution in public schools. In fact, it's ILLEGAL to do otherwise. That's the real reason why I left the public school system. I can't abide by not letting students think for themselves. It's a disservice to them, basically telling them that we don't trust them to make up their own minds.

Reply

"Do they get to decide if they beleive the Laws of Thermodynamics? Yes: The second of which, by the way, directly contradicts evolution. It states that systems move toward chaos witout outside intervention while the theory of evolution predicts a movement toward higher order/intelligence."

False. That the 2nd Law contradicts evolution has been so thuroughly debunked that even creationist web sites tell their people not to use it. If you think the assertion is true, you're at least 40 years behind the curve.

Reply

"Why are so many people afraid to tell kids that there are two (or actually more) competing theories out there? "

Becasue there *aren't* "two competing theories." ToE is a scientific theory. Creationism and it's current spun version--ID--is *religion*. Don't take my word for it. There is a whole series of court decisions on the topic, the latest one being from _Kitzmiller v. Dover_, and you can read the full decision (plus the underlying testimony if you don't want to take the judge's word for it).

In order to have "two competing theories", there has to be a *second* THEORY, and right now, there isn't one.

If you want to contrast competing theories, go find a second, real honest-to-Berzeluis THEORY, not just some wishful thinking that tries to diguise Biblical literalism in scientific words.

Reply

"Do people really think that exposure to alternative views makes children dumber than blindly learning just one view? That is a very scary thought."

Certainly not. Let's let the schools teach comparative religion and expose *all8 children to the myriad of different religions that are out there. Open their minds to the possibilities that what they get at home isn't the One And Only Revealed Truth, that other people have differnt takes on truth and morality.

Reply

"Do they get to decide whether or not to accept ages of rocks dervied from radioisotope dating? Yes: we discuss this in detail

Do you suggest some "alternative" explanation for the cosmic background radiation? No, because I don't teach astronomy"

So....do you--or your students--know enough about how radioisotope dating is done to intellignetly discuss *why* rocks are direct evidence for a very old Earth? Even if you don't teach astronomy, do you understand how the CBR supports current estimates of the age of the universe?

Reply

Rachel May

I have to address one of your points.

"Do they get to decide if they beleive the Laws of Thermodynamics? Yes: The second of which, by the way, directly contradicts evolution. It states that systems move toward chaos witout outside intervention while the theory of evolution predicts a movement toward higher order/intelligence."

You are mistaken. Evolution is not about creatures & plants attaining more intelligence or all reaching a particular goal. It is about their adapting to the pressures of their environment. This happens in myriad ways, often through mutation (a form of chaos). Greater differentiation is the result of evolution; if there were just one goal, one predefined result, of evolution, then everything would come to look more and more similar, but that is not the case. Rabbits have different selective pressures from mollusks from humans from orchids, and thus evolve along a different trajectory.

Reply

(Re #7)
I certainly would object if you taught creationism is a *science* class. If you teach a religion class, have at it.

However, do you teach only one form of creationism or do you survey the field of the various sorts? If you teach it from a Biblical perspective, do you go over *both* of the creations sequences in the bible, or do you gloss over the fact that two different sequences of creation are given?

As for it being illegal to teach creationism in public schools...that's a matter of US Constitution. you may have heard of it. "Congress shall make no law establishing religion..." and the later amendment extending limits on the Federal Government to the states.

There is, however, no bar to teaching comparative religion, except that it would have every strong beleiver tearing the buildings down if anyone ever tried to *really* teach it. After all, True Believers can't have their little darlings exposed to ideas that directly contradict their own cherished beliefs--with sources every bit as authoritative as their own.

But, then, I really don't care if you want to retreat to a religious school and restrict your kids from actually learning enough science to be successful in the modern world. Afte all, somebody has to sweep the floors and pick up the trash for the scientists and engineers that are building the future.

Reply

W.H. Heydt, as a teen I took a semester course comparing creationism to evolution. There are scientific arguments on both sides. Please do not mislead those with less knowledge into thinking there is no science behind creationism.

And don't give us your elitist crap about differently-educated kids sweeping up after you. Most of the contributors to modern science were creationists. A fairly large chunk of today's rich populations are creationists too. And I might just make more money than you. (Actually, I don't fully subscribe to either Darwinism or creationism; the point is, I will not bow down to anyone just because they happen to have the floor at a particular moment.)

You sound positively paranoid about the existence of a different view on something for which you DON'T have a complete answer. Again, all you know is the tip of the iceberg, so quit being so arrogant.

Reply