US states consider laws allowing Creationism to be taught by science teachers

[RFayette]

This is nonsense.  Evolution is a demonstrable fact, supported by numerous fields of study from genetics to physiology to paleontology.  Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and comparative analysis of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA strongly points to shared common ancestry of humans and other primates over the past few million years.  

The only honest argument for creationism is for one to reject all of this evidence a priori because one uses a Bayesian prior of 1 for a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account, and as such no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind.  Needless to say, this mindset is not scientific and thus should not be in a science class.  The whole point of the scientific method is to formulate models that approximate reality, and these models are derived on the basis of experimentation and observation; if these observations or results contradict a model (and these aberrations can be replicated), that model must be modified to fit the new data.  Creationism is by definition unfalsifiable, makes no testable, specific predictive claims, and in the minds of those who hold to it, cannot be changed based on new evidence.   Reliance on revelation from religious texts automatically excludes such viewpoints from the domain of science, even if they are true (which in this case it obviously is not).

[RFayette]

If it is taught in an elective class yes but not in a science class

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

     Students would benefit from a solid conception of how the world operates. If science can be dispensed with, then why not math after the grade school level?

Plus, it's important for students to understand the basics of science in order for them to be informed voters.  Understanding the scientific method and how one can draw conclusions from it has implications far beyond evolution - the idea that changing one's mind in light of new evidence can be noble and not simply a result of "spinelessness," for one, is an important principle.  And advanced study of science also inherently improves numeracy and quantitative skills (not to mention critical thinking and problem-solving ability), which can help even if one never uses that domain-specific knowledge later in life.  I can say that my 2 years of physics in college did more to prepare me for collegiate math and computer science courses than anything else, just because of the nature of how to solve difficult problems, break them down into manageable components, etc. is quite generalizable.

[RFayette]

Geez, I'm feeling like quite the liberal in this thread, but as much as I like you Santander, some of this stuff just annoys me.

If it is taught in an elective class yes but not in a science class

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

     Students would benefit from a solid conception of how the world operates. If science can be dispensed with, then why not math after the grade school level?

Yes, but the definition of "the world" we live in is subjective and metaphysical. I never suggested dispensing with science, I am saying that our education system ought to reflect our founding principle of individual liberty. The only reason I would keep math, European history and civics is because I believe those are necessary subjects to ensure that the education system can "civilize" and integrate children into our society, which should be the first and only social objective of public education.

This may be true, but surely you acknowledge the utility of the axiom of existence?  I contend that the study of the natural world with the presupposition of us being able to make conclusions about the natural world based on observation and experimentation, through the reliability of our own sciences - is the key driver of the massive increase of our quality of life over the past 400 years.  So much economic growth is the result of technology, which has its roots in scientific innovations that came form the scientific method, and the worldview associated with it.  if you want to talk about forces that have "civilized" society and brought us forward as a people, surely science has to be at the top of the list?

Liberty doesn't mean that people should not be exposed to empirically-supported viewpoints concerning scientific issues.  People have a right to believe whatever they want, but society should encourage frameworks that have proven to be useful in uncovering the secrets of our natural world and developing technology.  Also, if evolution isn't taught in schools, that isn't a big deal.  But not requiring science at all - specifically, the methodology behind how conclusions are reached at in the discipline - would be a great disservice to students and the future economy.

Also:

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

All science classes should be electives, but required classes include study of history and religion? I'm not saying history shouldn't be taught, but not requiring science in the 21st century is patently absurd. If anything, science/STEM needs to be pushed harder and taught more effectively.

Amen to this.  Science, like foreign language and computer science, needs to be introduced at younger ages (and in a more rigorous way than "here's some Bill Nye videos") in our K-12 system. 

[RFayette]

This is nonsense.  Evolution is a demonstrable fact, supported by numerous fields of study from genetics to physiology to paleontology.  Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and comparative analysis of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA strongly points to shared common ancestry of humans and other primates over the past few million years.  

The only honest argument for creationism is for one to reject all of this evidence a priori because one uses a Bayesian prior of 1 for a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account, and as such no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind.  Needless to say, this mindset is not scientific and thus should not be in a science class.  The whole point of the scientific method is to formulate models that approximate reality, and these models are derived on the basis of experimentation and observation; if these observations or results contradict a model (and these aberrations can be replicated), that model must be modified to fit the new data.  Creationism is by definition unfalsifiable, makes no testable, specific predictive claims, and in the minds of those who hold to it, cannot be changed based on new evidence.   Reliance on revelation from religious texts automatically excludes such viewpoints from the domain of science, even if they are true (which in this case it obviously is not).

-I didn't realize you are an atheist, RFayette.

I am not an atheist (as should be obvious).  My point was that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that a literal interpretation of the Bible with respect to Genesis 1 is simply untenable.  Furthermore, I pointed out that religion and science are different domains and we shouldn't mix them, and I contend that using the Bible to uncover scientific truths in an attempt to override science is rather unwise - research, not revelation, should guide questions in the natural sciences concerning origins.  The reason for this is obvious - if we simply use the Bible without looking at external evidence from the natural world, we would end up believing the Earth is 6000 years old as Bishop Usher did.  However, observation has shown that there are innumerate pieces of evidence form different fields which contradict this finding.  Therefore, continuing to hold this belief not only is inaccurate from a scientific POV but also has theological implications - most notably, that God is  a trickster, who plants layers of dinosaur fossils well below any human fossils across the world, and yet somehow history began with the first humans.  Scripture teaches clearly that God is not the author of deception, so it's wrong to have such an interpretation that would imply as such.  

This isn't to say science has all the answers; by all means, I certainly don't hold to that.  Rather, it's important not to mix science and religion, or we'll run into problems.  Furthermore true statements which are unfalsifiable or cannot be tested scientifically should not, by definition, be in a science class. 

[RFayette]

^ One could argue that Molecules-to-man evolution is not science then, as no one can reproduce it. Do you really want to use that definition?

     It can be verified without being reproduced. The theory of evolution has a vast body of evidence that supports its veracity, even though the evolutionary chain from the first eukaryote to animals today cannot actually be reproduced.

Indeed.  Our shared genetic code itself is evidence for "molecules-to-man evolution."  Science is about analyzing data, processes, etc. and constructing models which provide insight into the natural world.  Traditional experiments are one way to achieve this, as seen in chemistry, experimental physics, etc.  And such experiments indeed play a role in biology; however, much of evolutionary biology is about reconstructing the past based on direct observation of anatomy, fossils, genetics, etc.  Of course, results from experiments in other domains - such as radioactive dating - can help construct these models (with estimates of age, possible habitat, etc.).  This is not to say that models constructed aren't subject to falsification, either - the discovery of endogenous retroviruses helped corroborate the evolutionary trees based on morphological and fossil data.  This cross-confirmation from different fields of study is the effective confirmation of evolution.

As an aside, macroevolution vs. microevolution is a silly debate and rather arbitrary.  The level of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is greater than that between certain pairs of species of beetles, yet many creationists would concede the latter as an example of "microevolution."  There is no reason why the mechanisms which drive microevolution cannot, over a long period of time, drive changes over a greater taxonomic level.