Do you believe Creationism should be taught in public schools

[bedstuy]

No, but this whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill. I get the impression on both sides that it's more about signalling that you are not one of those people than the education of one's children.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the way math and reading are taught in my local public school system than how evolution is addressed in science class.

Shouldn't high school students learn basic biology?  Evolution is one of the central theories in biology, if not the central theory.

[bedstuy]

No, but this whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill. I get the impression on both sides that it's more about signalling that you are not one of those people than the education of one's children.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the way math and reading are taught in my local public school system than how evolution is addressed in science class.

Shouldn't high school students learn basic biology?  Evolution is one of the central theories in biology, if not the central theory.

Perhaps, but it's not like it's very difficult to learn.  I recall evolution being by far one of the easiest topics in AP Biology, with genetics/molecular biology, especially having to learn the enzymes and pathways involved in DNA replication, transcription, etc.  That's far harder than any of the concepts needed for evolution.

Anyways, teaching creationism should be the prerogative of the local church, so I'm not in favor of creationism being taught in public schools, unless it is part of a Bible class.  It's not a scientific theory but rather a lens by which one sees the world (a Biblical worldview), which includes how one interprets scientific evidence. 

What does that matter how difficult you found different concepts in your biology class?

[bedstuy]

If you learn biology as a list of discrete concepts, you're getting a bad education.  You should be understanding biology as a series of systems that work together.  You have to learn evolution to understand biological systems.  I don't know how many days you need to spend learning it, but it's a central theory.  If you don't understand evolution, you can't truly understand anything in biology. 

[bedstuy]

No, but this whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill. I get the impression on both sides that it's more about signalling that you are not one of those people than the education of one's children.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the way math and reading are taught in my local public school system than how evolution is addressed in science class.

Shouldn't high school students learn basic biology?  Evolution is one of the central theories in biology, if not the central theory.

Yes that's exactly what I said in my first post.

My point is that the debate holds an undue place of importance in popular educational debate. Perhaps I have been hanging out in the wrong corners of the internet, but it seems that evolution v creationism in schools screeds vastly outnumber their pro v anti phonics counterparts, and that is concerning to me.

So, if you find the debate annoying, shouldn't it be incumbent on the people who are wrong to shut up, not the people who are right?

[bedstuy]

If you learn biology as a list of discrete concepts, you're getting a bad education.  You should be understanding biology as a series of systems that work together.  You have to learn evolution to understand biological systems.  I don't know how many days you need to spend learning it, but it's a central theory.  If you don't understand evolution, you can't truly understand anything in biology. 

It is true that biology does work as systems working together, but a lot of it does boil down to understanding and memorizing different processes, such as all the intermediates in cellular respiration or photosynthesis, or the different organelles in a cell, etc. You can have broad knowledge of how body systems work, how cells function, etc. without knowing evolution, so I think your definition of what "understanding anything in biology" means is pretty darn arbitrary.   

No, you can't.  Evolution is such a basic element in biology that you can't understand anything without it.  You can memorize what is in a cell or what a nucleus, but you will never understand the "why" of anything.  If you don't understand the "why," you really have a superficial understanding of the subject.  Without understanding systems and theories and how things tie together, it's just a series of facts.

Anyways, if we're concerned about the "dumbing down" of curriculum or increasing educational rigor and quality, then evolution gets way too much attention.  We should spend more time talking about how many books should be read per year and the type/length of papers that should be required, phonics vs. non-phonics (as DC Al pointed out), teaching computer science and programming, and increasing algebraic proficiency.  These kinds of things would have a far greater impact on educational quality than any instructional decision about teaching evolution.   

Well, that's not biology.  Let's teach biology and also other subjects, it's not that difficult. 

[bedstuy]

By the way, someone who goes to my church is a structural biologist about to finish his phD at Stanford and is an ardent young-Earth creationist.  I'd think he's be surprised to hear from an attorney that he doesn't understand biology.   You can learn how systems work together in the present without even broaching questions of the past, so I think your putting the theory of evolution on a pedestal says more about your ideological commitment to naturalism and desire to imbue it in others than anything else.

To say you can't understand biology without evolution is like saying you can't understand mechanics without special relativity (to explain why gravity acts how it does).  Evolution is an explanatory mechanism, yes, but so much can be studied within biology without ever having to reference evolution.

If someone is a young-earth creationist, doesn't that strike you as crazy?

Listen bud, whenever you look at anything in biology, you have to see it as a product of evolution.     If you don't see that, you miss that huge explanatory variable in everything.  And, not just in science, evolution explains the world you live in and who human beings are.  Evolution is one of those incredibly powerful concepts that ties together everything you see in the world and explains it. 

Why would you just choose not to learn one of the central themes in biology that pervades the entire subject and is a fact of life, which biology is the study of?

You're making a weird argument.  It makes me think you don't believe in evolution or something.  Is that true?

[bedstuy]

By the way, someone who goes to my church is a structural biologist about to finish his phD at Stanford and is an ardent young-Earth creationist.  I'd think he's be surprised to hear from an attorney that he doesn't understand biology.   You can learn how systems work together in the present without even broaching questions of the past, so I think your putting the theory of evolution on a pedestal says more about your ideological commitment to naturalism and desire to imbue it in others than anything else.

To say you can't understand biology without evolution is like saying you can't understand mechanics without special relativity (to explain why gravity acts how it does).  Evolution is an explanatory mechanism, yes, but so much can be studied within biology without ever having to reference evolution.

If someone is a young-earth creationist, doesn't that strike you as crazy?

Listen bud, whenever you look at anything in biology, you have to see it as a product of evolution.     If you don't see that, you miss that huge explanatory variable in everything.  And, not just in science, evolution explains the world you live in and who human beings are.  Evolution is one of those incredibly powerful concepts that ties together everything you see in the world and explains it. 

Why would you just choose not to learn one of the central themes in biology that pervades the entire subject and is a fact of life, which biology is the study of?

You're making a weird argument.  It makes me think you don't believe in evolution or something.  Is that true?

I definitely believed in evolution prior to going to college (and my posting history can attest to this ); however, I am definitely leaning more on the creation side since I began attending college.  The Bible study at the church I attend is focusing on the book of Genesis, and both pastors/elders there are strong proponents of a young Earth literal-creation view of Genesis, and their arguments are rather persuasive from a scriptural point of view. Nonetheless, I am not 100% sold on the young-Earth creation paradigm at this point (and still am open to theistic evolution as a possibility) despite heading in that direction, though I definitely believe in a literal Adam and Eve.  My posts were largely saying that from a secular POV, there's no reason to focus on teaching evolution other than meaningless posturing or as an attempt to promote secular ideas.  There are many better things to focus on.

That explains a lot, and you're accusing me of having an agenda!  Oh boy, that's rich.
Your whole point here is that we should ignore or "spin" the science to fit your worldview.  You don't want evolution to be the central theory of biology because you don't like the conclusion.  However, in science you have to go by the evidence.

If you look at the evidence, evolution is proven, 100%, rock-solid.  If you don't agree, you're delusional, uneducated or stupid.  Now, you're totally allowed to pretend or try to delude yourself into thinking evolution is a tiny addendum to biology or even that it's made up.  But, that's not science.  That's your choice to try to get your mind to believe something despite all the evidence.  That has no bearing on what science classes should be.

[bedstuy]

First, I'm not trying to "spin" the science at all - I have said before that I do not believe creationism shouldn't be taught in biology class because it is a worldview (from a Biblical lens) rather than based on the scientific method.  And I'm OK with evolution being taught; I believe evolution is the best naturalistic explanation of the origin of species; nonetheless, the theory necessarily discounts any supernatural events from occurring with respect to creation and thus pursues truth only from a naturalistic P.O.V.    My argument was that even from a secular POV, plenty of biology can be done without it, and it's hardly necessary to put an undue focus on the topic.  I believe that groups like the "Center for Science Education" push evolution education heavily as a backdoor into promoting secularism rather than promoting science education, given the many other science topics they could focus on instead. 

What do you mean "undue focus" on it?  You have to learn about evolution as a part of biology.  Anything you learn without that core theory is going to be incomplete and won't make sense.  Evolution is a theory that unites and explains the facts you learn.  I guess your plan would be that students do rote memorization of biology facts.  That's a bad way to learn anything.  You forget facts unless you put them in a context and explain the larger systems. 

At the end of the day, evolution is one of the main system in life.  It's been a core piece of biology since the 19th century and it has already been conclusively established.  You may dislike the implications for religion, but that's not the problem of science.  Religion has to be interpreted in light of science, not the other way around.

[bedstuy]

If you learn biology as a list of discrete concepts, you're getting a bad education.  You should be understanding biology as a series of systems that work together.  You have to learn evolution to understand biological systems.  I don't know how many days you need to spend learning it, but it's a central theory.  If you don't understand evolution, you can't truly understand anything in biology. 

It is true that biology does work as systems working together, but a lot of it does boil down to understanding and memorizing different processes, such as all the intermediates in cellular respiration or photosynthesis, or the different organelles in a cell, etc. You can have broad knowledge of how body systems work, how cells function, etc. without knowing evolution, so I think your definition of what "understanding anything in biology" means is pretty darn arbitrary.   

No, you can't.  Evolution is such a basic element in biology that you can't understand anything without it.  You can memorize what is in a cell or what a nucleus, but you will never understand the "why" of anything.  If you don't understand the "why," you really have a superficial understanding of the subject.  Without understanding systems and theories and how things tie together, it's just a series of facts.

And how many people actually need more than that series of facts?  You're making an argument that would be akin to arguing that you need to know how internal combustion engines (or batteries) work to be able to drive a car.  Heck you don't even need to know that to be an auto mechanic.  You would to be an automotive engineer, but even in the biological equivalent of a genetic engineer, you don't need to know how evolution works to splice a genome.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in evolution, but the idea that it is essential to be able to work in the biological sciences is ludicrous.  You do need to know genetics, but while evolution depends upon genetics, the reverse is not true.  Our understanding of genetics works equally well regardless of whether one believes in the standard scientific cosmology (Big Bang+Evolution) or in Young Earth Creationism.

What a terrible analogy.  Biology isn't some practical subject like driving a car or digging a ditch.  It's an academic subject.  Academics is not memorizing a random series of facts that aren't tied together.  You need to understand why things are the way they are to actually make sense of the facts and have any true knowledge. 

There is no debate that evolution is one of the central ways to explain biology, to make sense of the facts and understand them.  It would be educational malpractice to remove evolution from biology.  Stop playing stupid Ernest, it's annoying and pointless.

[bedstuy]

As a student of biology I mist tell you: the entire academic discipline is made into nonsense if evolution is thrown out the window. One can 'understand' the subject without it, but only at an entirely superficial level that lacks scientific grounding.

How so?  What is there in biology that you think is best explained by evolution that cannot be equally well be explained via genetics alone?  I don't see anything, tho I will admit my science studies were more in the field of the physical sciences than in the biological ones.  Take for example cladistics.  While evolution is used as the standard theory to explain why the genetic relationships between species exist, I don't see any particular loss in cladistics' value to understand the world we live in if the cause of those relationships is not specified.

No.  Just no.  Give me a break. 

[bedstuy]

No.  Just no.  Give me a break. 

It appears we have different views on what constitutes science.  For me, science is the subset of natural philosophy that creates testable propositions.  Unlike the Big Bang theory, which has produced testable propositions such as the existence of background microwave radiation, evolution has to date been a descriptive theory rather than a predictive one. As such it is a branch of natural philosophy, but not of science.  Its value lies chiefly in explaining how in a deistic/atheist worldview, the genetic diversity we observe could have arisen in a cosmology that has existed long enough for evolution to work. Genetics is testable and thus is science and is an essential basis for understanding biology.

Evolution also is largely compatible with theistic worldviews. The primary exception is with theologies such as Young Earth Creationism which don't allow for there to have been enuf time for evolution to work.  I suppose that's why YECers waste so much of their time trying to "disprove" evolution and why in response so much effort is spent defending the theory.  Rather a waste of time since even without the natural philosophy of evolution, there is considerable science that contradicts YEC. Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved.

OK.  I have the understanding of what science and biology are that is commonly accepted by everyone.  You have your own personal definition of science that isn't even attributable to any actual facts.  If we're talking about what should be taught in a biology class, you personal definition that randomly excludes established areas of science based on your pedantic whims isn't very important.  Evolution is a part of biology, and is taught as a central theory in every college in the world.  We should prepare students for the world, not to agree with your strange, pedantic beliefs. 

Of course evolution produces testable propositions.  What the hell are you talking about?  We have things like experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, those show evolution in progress and we base tons of research in medicine on the fact of evolution.  Do you think we should stop medicine from worrying about antibiotic resistance because it's based on evolution?

Or, what about the following.  Hypothesis: The fossil record will show living things have a common ancestor.  This has been proven and it has huge explanatory power for the world.  The world we live in only makes sense if you believe in evolution.  Like, how could you possibly understand bio-geography without evolution?  In that sense, we don't need to bother proving or testing evolution, it's proven to have occurred.  But, it's an unspoken assumption in biology that underlies all other research, all research keeps proving it more.

Your total ignorance on this stuff is really on display with that last sentence.  "Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved." 

WTF are you talking about!?  If you found human fossils 500 mya, that would disprove evolution.  No?

[bedstuy]

Of course evolution produces testable propositions.  What the hell are you talking about?  We have things like experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, those show evolution in progress and we base tons of research in medicine on the fact of evolution.  Do you think we should stop medicine from worrying about antibiotic resistance because it's based on evolution?

I'd classify that as genetics, not evolution. The central thesis of evolution that makes it controversial to creationists is not that species adapt to their environment, heck even the Bible has an example of that. Rather it is that new species arise out of old ones.

You classify it wrong and you don't know what evolution is.  Evolution is not that "species adapt to their environment."  See, if you don't know what evolution is, you can't really judge whether to teach it in school.  That's probably the problem, you're uneducated on this subject, but you want to have an opinion.  Learn about evolution, it's important to understand.

Or, what about the following.  Hypothesis: The fossil record will show living things have a common ancestor.  This has been proven and it has huge explanatory power for the world.  The world we live in only makes sense if you believe in evolution.  Like, how could you possibly understand bio-geography without evolution?  In that sense, we don't need to bother proving or testing evolution, it's proven to have occurred.  But, it's an unspoken assumption in biology that underlies all other research, all research keeps proving it more.

Biogeography is easily explained by creationism. Indeed, as a descriptive but unprovable theory, creationism excels at providing explanations. In the specific example you just pointed out, the creator chose to have creatures with similar genetics be close to one another.

That's not a scientific explanation.  You can say that about literally anything.  You could say that magical fairies explain physics, it's not useful or scientific.  Evolution has scientific explanations and real observations like Bergman's rule.  Again, evolution is a proven fact, it is the only possible conclusion based on the evidence.

Your total ignorance on this stuff is really on display with that last sentence.  "Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved."  

WTF are you talking about!?  If you found human fossils 500 mya, that would disprove evolution.  No?

No. Were you or anyone else around 500 mya to see those fossils deposited? Unless we're actually directly observing the creation of fossils and establishing different conditions to observe the results, then no testing is taking place.

Isolated examples of out of time fossils suggests error in measuring the temporal origin of them and thus they would be useless as proof or disprove. Extensive examples would indicate our theories of geologic history are so out of whack that geology couldn't be used to say anything about biology.  Evolution is dependent upon certain untestable assumptions such as physical processes operating in prehistory the same as they have in historical times and that nature acts without the intervention of an outside force upon it. Those aren't unreasonable assumptions, indeed I believe in them myself, but I also recognize them as axioms. When it comes to explaining the biological world as it is, there are other axioms that work.

That's just your usual meaningless pedantic nonsense, holy cow, just idiotic.  What you're describing is  not a flaw in biology or evolution, that's a flaw in the fact that we can't create a time machine.  We can't go back in time and watch continental drift.  So, you would say plate tectonics is not science?  We can't directly observe stars in the sky because they're too far away.  So, that makes astronomy not science?  Or, for that matter, are you against teaching history that goes beyond your memory because it could have been a total fabrication.  We can't observe George Washington, so let's not teach school kids that speculative theory that he existed?

That's literally what you're saying and it is pure horsesh**t.  

Human evolution is falsifiable. As Bedstuy points out we could potentially find fossils that would contradict it.

But Bedstuy, when you say that you have the commonly accepted understanding of what science is, what is it? I am not entirely convinced that there is a commonly accepted definition. I would mostly agree with Ernest's (though I also think it includes  a certain degree of deductive reasoning from falsifiable hypotheses) but do think it is misapplied here.

No, I just mean the definition that we all agree on.  Nobody is imposing this restriction on schools that they shouldn't teach anything outside Ernest's pedantic solipsistic definition of science.  

Dictionary.com on biology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dictionary.com on science:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bedstuy]

As long as we're going to bring up appeals to authority.

mirriam-webster.com on science, in particular the third definition:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My emphasis on the testability of science as what differentiates it from the rest of natural philosophy is hardly unique to me.  Just as the insistence of some that their viewpoint is the only possible one without being able to explain why that is the case is hardly unique to this particular topic.

The analogy some are making here with history strikes me as a bad one.  With history we have a chain of human experience which allows us to know what happened within the historical past despite no one alive today having directly experienced that.

That kind of epistemology makes no sense whatsoever. 
1.  You can absolutely see evolution happen in experiments.  This is agreed upon fact.  You can also see evolution in domestic animals.  There is no debate on this fact in the scientific community.  What is your response to this?

2.  It's completely arbitrary to say observations like fossil evidence are unscientific.  It's just semantics I guess.  Yes, you can't create an earth and run experiments on billions of years of evolution there. 

Now, this is the point of arguing with you, where you reveal that you actually agree with me, you just wanted to be verbose in a pedantic annoying way.  So, you really don't think we should teach evolution in biology because it's technically "natural philosophy."  Really?  Are you serious?

This distinction makes no sense in practice, whatever it is.  Evolution is a completely necessary to understanding biology.  It's falsifiable and it has been well-established and central in the academic study of biology since the 19th century.  You need to understand evolution to make sense of the different topics and facts in biology.  You can learn facts all you want, but it's not real learning without synthesizing those facts into a theory.

And, finally, you don't understand evolution.  You're an ignorant person from a sheltered background I guess.  That's fine, but uneducated people shouldn't decide what is taught in academics.  No? 

[bedstuy]

Let's just say I have a very strong skepticism of ivory tower mentalities that dismiss practical results as being mere window dressing on the "really important" abstract theories  I say that as someone who has been in that ivory tower, albeit in the mathematical sciences and not the biological sciences.

Evolution is a good theory.  I believe it to be true.  But I have yet to see one practical result that depends upon it being true.  Nor do I see where it is more useful as an organizing principle for biology than genetics alone.  Whether our current genetic diversity occurred by chaotic processes alone (aka natural selection), orderly processes alone (like the breeding that produced domesticated plants and animals from wild ones), or some mixture of the two doesn't affect the practical results one can obtain from biology.

The only practical effect the theory of evolution has had that I can see is that it helped spur the acceptance of genetics.

Your distinction between genetics and evolution betrays a deep, deep ignorance of both.  Genetics is not a theory that explains biodiversity.  Genetics is a topic.  What is the alternative theory to evolution?

As for your experimental issue, you just don't understand evolution.  We see evolution in the lab, fruit fly experiments, bacteria experiments.  Do you deny this fact?

As for your point about practicality, wrong, wrong, wrong.  Come on.  Bacteria resistance to antibiotics.  If you don't believe in evolution, obviously you would think antibiotic resistance is impossible.  That would be tragic. Plenty of other clear examples, but you're missing the bigger point.  Evolution is the central framework of biology.  It's a reference point and a key to understanding biology.  A theoretical understanding of the big picture is key in understanding the small picture and doing science.

[bedstuy]

Human evolution is falsifiable. As Bedstuy points out we could potentially find fossils that would contradict it.

But Bedstuy, when you say that you have the commonly accepted understanding of what science is, what is it? I am not entirely convinced that there is a commonly accepted definition. I would mostly agree with Ernest's (though I also think it includes  a certain degree of deductive reasoning from falsifiable hypotheses) but do think it is misapplied here.

No, I just mean the definition that we all agree on.  Nobody is imposing this restriction on schools that they shouldn't teach anything outside Ernest's pedantic solipsistic definition of science. 

Dictionary.com on biology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dictionary.com on science:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't quite say the dictionary definition is wrong, but it's missing some key things that are important to the discussion. For instance, with those requirements, one could very easily argue that creationism is science. The only hitch would be the experimentation clause of #2, and if one requires that clause specifically then one must also say that the descent of man by evolution is not science. What's missing here is falsifiability. Without that criterion, there really isn't a good reason to teach evolution and not teach creationism as science in public schools.

When I said I'm not sure we actually have a clearly agreed upon definition of science, what I meant was whether or not deductive reasoning is included. The scientific method is structured to foster inductive reasoning, which pretty much everyone agrees is science. What is less clear is whether or not we can take those conclusions and synthesize other ideas from them and still have that be considered science if the final conclusions are not testable. The majority opinion seems to be yes, but that isn't really settled. The crux of Ernest's argument is that, no, we can't take untestable deductive claims and call them science. I disagree with him. I think evolutionary theories in general are falsifiable since, as you stated, we could find evidence in the course of fossil excavation that would contradict them.

You're being extremely dense to the point I don't know if you're kidding or not.  This is totally pointless semantics.  When we say evolution, we can mean several different things.  You and Ernest are trying to use that ambiguity to purposefully misunderstand subject in an incredibly annoying, pedantic and stupid way.  It's amazing.  If you're joking, please tell me.

Let's differentiate the following:

Evolution:  The processes of evolution, sex, genetic drift in animal populations, genetic mutation, the survival of creatures with certain traits, the sexual selection of organisms. 

Would you disagree that it's possible to study or experiment in any of those fields?  No, right?

Evolution:  The record of evolution that has already occurred, fossils, cladistics, geology, paleontology. 

Now, this is stuff you can't do an experiment with.  It already happened...  You're basically asking for something that makes no sense and is impossible.  Like, would you say we can't teach the atomic theory because we don't know if atoms existed 500 mya?  We can't go back and do experiments 500 mya so no physics then? 

[bedstuy]

1.  Why are you arguing with me if you think evolution should be taught in schools?  That was the point, Ernest is saying no because who the hell knows.

2.  We should include studying creationism within science actually.  It's just that there's no evidence or theoretical basis for creationism.  But, theoretically you could find evidence for it and it would be science. 

[bedstuy]

You can't disprove the concept of God.  I agree.

But, you could find evidence that a God created the earth and that human beings began with two original creatures not produced from evolution.  I guess if you're saying that God's powers would by necessity be magical and impossible to perceive as humans, that's a different story.

[bedstuy]

Third, you seem to be reducing "creationism" to solely YEC which has so many scientific flaws beyond incompatibility with the "processes of evolution" that using it as your counterexample is using a strawman. Consider for example "directed evolution", which is often put forth by creationists trying to have their cake but eat it too. Philosophically, it doesn't appeal to me, but the fossil record doesn't speak as to whether natural selection or divine selection took place.

You could add God to any scientific theory then, no?  Then, we can't teach whether or not gravity only works because Poseidon makes it so.  We can't teach whether or not we get sick because of germs, and also God's wrath.  The theory, as we have it, does not require God.  If you're religious, obviously you believe God somehow has its hands in everything that takes place.  You can always say, "God acts through nature" and that doesn't make God/nature processes in any way distinguishable from nature by itself.

See, that question is not within science.  There is no evidence God existed and used artificial selection techniques to direct evolution.  We don't know what divine selection would look like so we really can't take a position on it.  Talking about that stuff is always going to be irrelevant to the subject.  The religious question "Why did God makes this happen?" is not a scientific question.

So, how would you find evidence that natural selection did not happen, and instead it was divine selection as you say?

Lastly, my point was not that the "record of evolution" should not be taught as part of the science of biology but that it wasn't a part of the subject necessary to be able to work with biology. We include a number of non-essentials in the curriculum, for a variety of reasons, but there also are time constraints so we can't include everything. There might be better uses of the time, at least at the grade school level. If it is included, it needs to be taught in a way that does not advocate a deistic/atheistic viewpoint.

Sure, you could selectively delete some major pieces of evidence from your knowledge and still retain the whole.  But, that's sort of irrelevant to the question at hand, which is what is necessary to teach in a biology class to high school kids?

The fossil/genetic evidence for evolution in the past is necessary in that class.  It would be a glaring admission not to mention that it exists.  It's not something you need to dwell on in any way, but it's a piece of the picture.  And, just given what the average kid knows, how do you present evolution while remaining agnostic about whether fossils exist?

[bedstuy]

You do enjoy making strawmen out of what I say, don't you? I believe I've made my views clear and I have no wish to continue the process of deconstructing your strawmen by giving further details you would only make more strawmen out of.

You had no point.  You usually don't have a point, you just find a semantic argument and repeat it over and over again.

[bedstuy]

You do enjoy making strawmen out of what I say, don't you? I believe I've made my views clear and I have no wish to continue the process of deconstructing your strawmen by giving further details you would only make more strawmen out of.

You had no point.  You usually don't have a point, you just find a semantic argument and repeat it over and over again.

I had a point, but it wasn't one that you wished to debate, so instead you provided points for us both. Your "debating" style is to put words in the mouths of those you argue with and then attack the strawmen you've built.

I looked back at your initial post.

Is it just that you're saying that we can tell students you can be agnostic about whether or not there is some kind of magic that allowed evolution to happen in the past?  What is the practical meaning for a high school biology class of your theory?

What do you delete from the textbook in your world?

[bedstuy]

I actually agree with you on this; while I certainly didn't always hold this belief, I'd currently consider myself a young-Earth creationist as well.  My point is that one can believe in evolution and/or an old Earth and not think that creation was "just an accident"; I also think these issues can unnecessarily divide Christians, especially between the young-Earth model and old-Earth model.

How?  Haven't you seen the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the age of the earth?

[bedstuy]

I actually agree with you on this; while I certainly didn't always hold this belief, I'd currently consider myself a young-Earth creationist as well.  My point is that one can believe in evolution and/or an old Earth and not think that creation was "just an accident"; I also think these issues can unnecessarily divide Christians, especially between the young-Earth model and old-Earth model.

How?  Haven't you seen the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the age of the earth?

Yes (from a naturalistic point of view), but I learned a lot during Bible study this quarter at my church (which was titled "Genesis:  The Beginning of Everything").  We met every week and discussed the first few chapters of Genesis and as such, the controversy of creation vs. evolution came up a lot.  The first thing the pastor did was show the flaws in multiple old-Earth interpretations of Genesis:   there was a lot of meat to those critiques, but the long and short of it can be summed up in his words:  "Every non-literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't spend nearly enough time on the text itself and departs too quickly to outside sources."  We also did discuss some of the issues (fossils, rock layers, distant starlight) and how it can be explained by physical laws being different during Creation Week (thus, the long-age interpretations that come from the extrapolating uniformitarian assumptions go away) and the effects of the worldwide flood.  He also assigned some books by creation scientists to read for further study; while I haven't gotten them yet, I do look forward to buying some of them.  Also, I've discussed some with a structural biologist finishing up his doctorate at Stanford regarding the issue; he is a strong YECer and has studied evolutionary arguments in depth, including those within his field (and finding them quite lacking, in fact), and he believes that a lot of the evidence is forced to fit an evolutionary framework no matter how absurd it seems.

Keep in mind that the whole of the young-Earth paradigm rests upon the Bible being the word of God, including Genesis.  We take that by faith.  Since you reject that (as an atheist, I believe?), then of course the young-Earth position would seem ridiculous from your worldview.  You can mock what my stance as "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it," and you'd be right.  That is my stance (and my church's, which had caused me to reconsider the issue in the first place).

Note:  I'm probably a little less dogmatic than some others in my church in that I still could see some viability in the gap theory and other possible old-Earth interpretations, though I still feel that the young-Earth paradigm best matches the text. 

So many reasons that makes no sense!! But simple question: How do you account for radiometric carbon dating?  That puts the earth at 4.5 billion or so.

And, you actually believe Noah's ark happened!?  But, it's a mythical story, you have to take it as a metaphor, right?  Because, it clearly did not happen.  It's common sense.  How do we have kangaroos only in Australia?

[bedstuy]

That literally says kangaroos could have floated on logs to Australia.  Not a source.  Think about it.  We only have kangaroos in Australia.  If Noah's ark landed in the Middle East, we would have kangaroos in Asia, North American mammals in Asia, lemurs all over the world and Asian mammals in North America.  No?  They would all have the same chance to spread out from the boat?  Instead, animal geography is clear evidence of evolution.  Isolated species evolve according to their environment and they show they've been in reproductive isolation.  Australia and Madagascar by being isolated from the rest of the world for millions of years have their own unique species. 

So, how did kangaroos know they were supposed to only live in Australia, and how did they swim there?  It's not possible for a kangaroo to swim or sail a log from Asia to Australia.  No?  How did lemurs know to go to Madagascar and how did they get there?  That's fatal to the theory right there

On radiometric dating, that's not really a theory they present at all.  The truth is that there are many isotopes, all confirm the same date, and it's clear that 5000-6000 years as a date is bonkers.  Just bonkers.

[bedstuy]

I understand those scenarios may seem far-fetched, but I believe the Bible, so they're going to have to do.  As for radiometric dating, there are well-documented instances of the dates being way, way off.  Regardless, the laws of nuclear decay could have been very different during creation week pre-Fall, so that's a possibility as well.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

But, just think about it.  How would a lemur know to walk from Asia, across Africa and swim across the open ocean to Madagascar?  They can't swim either, much less over 200 miles from Africa to Madagascar.  Why can't you just accept that it's a metaphorical narrative?

If you look at the wildlife on those isolate places, you can tell they were isolated from the rest of the land for long periods of time, millions of years.  Literally the only explanation. 

[bedstuy]

Most Christians don't think the Noah's ark story is literally true.  Just read the link you posted.

If you tell me you think that's persuasive, you're stupid or a liar.