On this blog, we’ve often discussed the evolution / intelligent design / creationism “debate”. Lately, I’ve been wondering if any of it really matters. I think society would benefit if as many people as possible had a strong grounding in science, especially biology, but there are a lot of people for whom this knowledge would have little or no meaning and a lot of people for whom the idea of evolution causes spiritual anguish. Should we have mandatory education in the theory of evolution? Who actually needs to understand the complicated subject of evolution, anyway?
I’m obviously playing devil’s (god’s?) advocate here but I think we should examine the reasons for and against teahing science, particularly evolution. While’re we’re at it, what about higher math, chemistry, physics, and history? Perhaps the time spent on these should be spent on everyday living topics such as how to balance a check book and how to preform first aid. As important as I think the sciences (and even history) are, these real-life subjects might have a greater positive effect on young people’s lives. We can always offer optional advanced courses, for those young people who are considering a career that requires additional education, right? I would worry that this system might result in a two-tiered society with educated and uneducated classes, but we already have that.
I agree that we have a two-tiered system all ready. The reason that I think that we should teach the sciences, and the arts, to all students is because there is no way to predict how their lives will run.
With a grounding in arts, sciences and language they will have tools with which to develop their interests in skills later in life; in areas that they may have never thought they would be interested.
I think that everyone should have the opportunity to at least learn how ideas which challenge their preconceptions work. At some level, anyway.
I wish I had more time for a cogent response, but I am working on tuibguy. Good topic
“Should we have mandatory education in the theory of evolution? Who actually needs to understand the complicated subject of evolution, anyway?”
Yes, we should, and no, the basics are not complicated. If we reduce the number of people who understand it, we reduce the number of people who become biologists.
Even worse, by increasing the number of people who do not understand basic science (and understanding WHY science is right and religion wrong is just as important), we increase the number of their own children who start off life even more disadvantaged, with no incentive to learn in the schools and no parental input either.
It’s a vicious, vicious cycle.
Definitely a provocative and important question. I think I’ll rephrase it so I can focus on one aspect: how important is the teaching of evolution in the context of the teaching of precollege science?
Here are some arguments for giving evolution a significant place in science education.
1. Evolutionary theory combines the best of experimental and historical scientific approaches, in that it is a combination of theoretical explanation/inference and hard experimental hypothesis testing. So it presents a panoramic view of how science works as an explanatory enterprise.
2. Evolution touches issues of intense interest to almost everyone: questions of human identity and significance, religious assumptions and narratives, the powerful allure of relatedness and ancestry. These ideas spawn culture wars and motivate scandal, but they can also add an edge of urgency to a scientific topic. If nothing else, it’s a science unit that isn’t boring; at best, it’s an unforgettable educational experience that affords an opportunity to see science as it really is.
3. Teaching biology without evolution is weird.
I vehemently disagree with taking a lackadaisical approach to any of the cornerstone subjects, either in the secondary or post-secondary level. We have a responsibility as a nation to ensure our students receive an education that encourages personal growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Teaching practical skills are certainly important; however denying students science, math, or language arts curricula retards our country’s efforts to remain competitive in a global economy. If it is our intention to become a nation of clerks and clergy, then count me out.