Creationist/ID Education should be allowed

I have heard creationists accept that natural selection, random mutations, and speciation occurs in our world. The only thing they seem to fight is anagenesis and evolution from one species. Most evolutionary research today studies mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, speciation, etc. There are in fact few studies which look at origin of life issues. So, the question is, what is there to fight about on the education level? Although most evolutionary biologists would like students to hear about the origin of life, what they really, really want high school students to learn is the mechanics of mutation and selection, so that they have the fundamentals neccessary to conduct 95% of all current evolutionary research.Anyone have major objections to a high school biology curriculum that involves and only involves natural selection, mutations, and speciation (with no mention of God or origin of species)?Edited by platypus, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I have no major objection - but I think skipping natural history would be a shame. It only defers learning it further down the education chain.

There MUST be no concession to creationists on any front regarding science education. Religion simply has no business dictating what can and cannot be taught in the classroom. We should be raising our standards and expecting our high school students to learn more about the sciences.Also, there is no way to sidestep the origin of species issue in geosciences. Fossil history is a vital diagnostic tool as well as one of the most facinating aspects of that science. To restrict it based on the hurt feels of some fundamentalists is not just wrong, it is a dire travesty.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I wouldn't call this a concession- rather, I would like to call this an illustration to creationists of how much of the debate they have lost when they concede natural selection and speciation. If they wish to insist on a "creationist" curriculum (which is how this whole thing got started), then the curriculum they will be insisting on now only differs from the "evolutionist" curriculum on a few points that do not affect most biology evolutionary research. The only issue they can really exclude from the current evolutionary curriculum is the origin of species, which is really more of a biochemical/geosciences issue anyway. These two topics aren't really high school curriculum, and I am specifically refering to a high school education.P.S. I wasn't taught evolution in my high school biology class (Catholic high school-they ignored the entire issue). Making the teaching of natural selection and speciation a neccessary part of a high school biology curriculum, whatever the evo/creo views of the school are, is a step up in my eyes, not a concession.

Well, there is the minor logical impossibility of teaching about speciation without teaching about the origin of species.

Not if God created archetypical species in the past- and these archetypal species have evolved into all the present day variations. Eg.- one original cat species that speciated into all present day cats.

That is the thing, these concepts SHOULD BE in high school curriculum. We should be working to include MORE into high school and not agreeing to less. This is especially true when such a concession is to the impotent and ignorant religious fundamentalists.I object wholesale to taking into account even creationists "feelings" when it comes to deciding what to do with science curriculium. There is no compromise for them. They are invaders into the public education system with the expressed intent to dumb down the education of our children in the name of God. Since they have no regard for the education they want to cripple they get no say. Period.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

quote:

---

the impotent...religious fundamentalists.

---

Wow. What country do you live in? I want to go there.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

If virility really was a function of ignorance I certainly would have to ask some people, "how's it hanging?"Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Heh. Yeah, I did notice that meaning of the word when I posted, but I really was responding to the literal meaning of "impotent".Any political force that can succeed in getting their agenda adopted by local school boards and governments and then waste months of court time when people oppose that is not quite, in my opinion, impotent.Impotent would be when they testify at a school board meeting the main responses are simply snickers and rolling eyes.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Yes, I agree, no concession to the impotent. But I think you are being unrealistic. As far as I understand the situation, the high school curriculum is jam-packed as it is. There is very little room to add more to it. All we can really hope for is that high schoolers come out with good fundamentals and a general grasp of science topics. When it comes down to it, what message do we want our HS students leaving with? All life originates from one common ancestor? Or that natural selection is a crucial factor governing the response of organisms to our environment? The former question has important philosophical implications and I guess is crucial to geosciences. But I am more concerned with the latter question, since this governs most of evolutionary and biomedical research, particular of rapidly evolving bacteria and viruses. I'd rather have our doctors capable of curing diseases than have our philosophers slightly more knowledgable about the world.Still waiting to hear what a creationist thinks of this curriculum...

quote:

---

All we can really hope for is that high schoolers come out with good fundamentals and a general grasp of science topics.

---

You mean like evolutionary biology?All species can be placed on a single philogenic tree. Almost all of biology revolves around this fact. Hence, knowing about common descent helps in developing a general grasp of all of biology. How is this not a fundamental?

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

I would say that the fundamental aspect of evolutionary biology is that organisms adapt to environments through the mechanism of natural selection. From this speciation follows, and from speciation we arrive at a single phylogenetic tree. The single phylogenetic tree is not the fundamental aspect, it is a conclusion or corollary that follows from the fundamental aspect.

What a lot of creationist want changed in public school textbooks will not make the material "dumb down". I am all for learning (truth). The main worry in science class isn't whether or not students learn about if God created them or not. However, a lot of textbooks contain stuff that has been disproven.
One example is Darwin's theory. In The Origin of Species, Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
This is called irreducible complexity. If the evolution process occurred so slow, most creatures wouldn't survive.
What evolved first, the animals eyes to see the prey, teeth to chew the prey, stomach to digest the prey, ect.? and when did the prey evolve? Darwin's theory was inspired before he realized how complex cells are. It is outdated and should not be taught in school.Edited by EraqiDberg, : spelling

---

;]