Staying skeptical of evolution

[dougo]

One more post for today. The Boston Globe has an article about the fight against teaching evolution in public schools (link from gibsonfeed). One thing mentioned is a label placed on the title page of a biology textbook: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." I happen to agree strongly with these statements, but the point is that everything should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. It's sort of redundant to put it on a textbook when this implicitly applies to all textbooks. Somehow I don't think putting the same label on bibles would be accepted by anyone, though.

Really, I'd be happy if human evolution were taken out of schools, as long as it's replaced by a greater emphasis on critical thinking, logic, and the scientific method. Teach a man to fish, etc. Of course schools should also continue to teach genetic reproduction and natural selection, since those theories are straightforward to test with experiments. Actually, natural selection isn't even a theory, it logically follows from genetic reproduction.

The article also quotes the 100-year-old Ernest Mayr: "What it really amounts to is a break with our Constitution, which tells you that you should keep religion out of public life." If only the Constitution actually said that!

Comments

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

You're completely putting words in my mouth here. If you reread my post, I think it should be clear that I'm not advocating a system where parents have no rights. I'm merely saying that there should be a balance between the parents' right to educate as they see fit, and the child's right to a good education. In most, if not all, states, parents have a right to homeschool, but not to provide as little or as much education as they desire and to call that homeschooling. If you believe that women have no need of literacy, and have a homeschooling plan that doesn't involve teaching your daughters to read and write, this won't be viewed as an acceptable homeschooling plan, and you'll have to change it or send your kids to a conventional school. I think this is a good thing.

There are religions that believe that the earth is flat, and 6000 years old, and that species (homo sapiens in particular) did not arise via evolution via natural selection. But I think that a real education, as opposed to a religious indoctrination being offerred in place of an education, teaches that these things are wrong, and I think that children have a right to a real education.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I think publicly funded education is a good idea, but I can't seem to find reasons as easily for making one particular ciriculum compulsory. If a dozen or so people want to believe the earth is flat, what's the harm? We could use more diversity of thought, not less.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

If no curricula are compulsory, then what's the point of publicly funded education? I could just set up a school that teaches exactly nothing, and get free money from the government.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Obviously money should be given on a per-student basis, not a flat rate. Why would parents send thier kids to the crappiest school when they can pick the best? You really need to consider effects like competition.

There could be some very, very broadstroke guidelines. The three Rs, for example. You could create incentives to make sure the system isn't abused.

To me, the purpose of public funding of education is to have better educated people in the country. This is essential both for a secure, stable democracy, and for a strong economy. If some groups wanted to opt out of the education system, that'd be fine by me; ultimately they'd just be hurting themselves, but it's not my place to make that decision for them.