Printer-friendly versionA few years ago, I wrote a classroom resource about ecology for elementary and middle school kids. It covered all the territory you’d expect—biomes, habitats, food chains, etc.
But the publisher insisted on a conspicuous omission. No mention could be made of one of the major biologists who pioneered ecology.
That biologist was Charles Darwin.
One section of the resource did note that life on earth had changed gradually over millions of years. But this monumental point was brought up almost as an afterthought. And the term evolution was not permitted.
Scientifically, this was like writing a book about astronomy with just a glancing reference to the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus—and then not mentioning him by name.
Why was this insult to science and injury to K-12 education permitted? Because the nationally known publisher was afraid of Christian creationists. I’m not speculating—I was told point-blank. Including evolution might have caused the publication to be banned at schools throughout the South. The publisher’s fears were well-grounded. In just the last few months, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas have all seen attempts to undermine evolutionary teaching.
This Friday—February 12—is Darwin Day. A celebration of Charles Darwin is badly needed because a mere 39 percent of Americans believe evolution explains how life formed on Earth. The censored resource I wrote is just one of the reasons why. School children are simply not being exposed to Darwin and his discoveries. They grow up hearing about evolution only vaguely and in the context of a debate with creationists.
Darwin Day is needed because a noisy subculture of religious extremists has dictated scientific education in this country. Publishers respond to pressure. So do school districts and state textbook committees. Seeing Americans celebrate Charles Darwin may help give these policymakers a much-needed dose of courage.
Perhaps then they will finally put evolution into the school curriculum with no apologies and no equivocation.
Comments
And how might Teaching
And how might Teaching Tolerance propose we exercise tolerance for students whose religious beliefs include creationism?
There is no contest between
There is no contest between evolution and creationism scientifically. Proof for evolution is well documented. The lack of proof for creationism is equally well documented. Creationism (or Intelligent Design) is not scientific, period.
Also, being tolerant of a minority does not mean you have to bend to the will of that minority. Americans are tolerant of Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that Christmas should not be celebrated. JWs are free to skip Christmas celebrations without the police rounding them up and forcing them to church on Dec. 25. But JWs are not free to tell other Christians that they can't celebrate Christmas.
Not the evidence I've looked
Not the evidence I've looked at. Are you people seriously researching both sides, or just your own side?
I assume you are referring to
I assume you are referring to the "evidence" that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? The only text that you will find that in is the Bible and the other pseudo-science articles written by creationists. Can you find people who don't believe in the holocaust? Sure, but should we then teach "both sides" that it did and didn't happen? One thing I really don't get about creationists is that they are willing to take advantage of the fruits of the evolutionary biology in the form of disease prevention, advanced medical procedures, genetically modified foods, but are unwilling to acknowledge that it exists. To deny evolution is to deny the very nature of science.
Honestly, one of the biggest
Honestly, one of the biggest draws of homeschooling for us was the ability to have a truly comprehensive science program that didn't equivocate on the topic of biology. I co-op a science class with a friend who was a bio major at Georgia Tech, who is equally (or perhaps even more) passionate about making sure our children have a scientifically sound, evidence-based foundation, something their public school peers don't seem to be getting in most places.
Darwin’s theory isn’t a
Darwin’s theory isn’t a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically “settled.”
Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species – changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time.
Evolution #2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that “somehow” materialized.
Evolution #3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo – Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.
When you see the word “evolution.”
You should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?” Because arguments and evidence supporting #1 do not support #2 or #3.
I would like to suggest to you some resources to help create meaningful arguments and enlightenment for both sides.
Because we all know, questions that aren't answered properly don't go away.
The Undertaker-Has Science Buried God?- John Lennox
Darwin's Black Box-Micheal Behe
The God Delusion-Richard Dawkins
The Dawkin's Delusion-Allister Mcgrath
and just for fun on a Friday night. . . Expelled- The Movie- with Ben Stein
All My Love,
Andra