Evolution debate exposes lack of understanding
By: Jonathan Garris
Issue date: 3/11/10 Section: Opinion
ess published an article about the growing trend of homeschool curriculum rejecting the concept of evolution in favor of creationism and intelligent design. The article itself stated that "Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S." and that most parents want to teach their children a "Bible-based version of the Earth's creation."
It's a trend that should be a great cause for concern. In a time when the rest of the world is rapidly surpassing the U.S. in scientific and mathematical fields, I find it worrisome that there are so many parents who are willing to shortchange their child's education and understanding of basic biology.
What I've found from my experience is that the people who "disagree" with evolution fail to actually comprehend it. Those who dispute it often times seem like they don't entirely understand the subject.
In regard to evolution itself, the elements of fact and theory should be relatively easy to understand. The consensus of the scientific world is that evolution is occurring, but the principles by which it occurs comprise the actual "theory" of evolution.
Morphologically and genetically, organisms that are alive today are far different from the ones that were alive in the past. Genetic and fossilized evidence very clearly demonstrates this idea, and the mechanism has been observed to occur. This idea that a species have changed over time can be thus regarded as the fact of evolution.
However, the theories of evolution encompass concepts like natural selection, mutation, migration patterns, and other mechanisms that can cause such changes to occur. Obviously, we can regard this as the theory of evolution, as such mechanisms are well up for debate.
Evolution falls in line with typical scientific theory, explained as being an "explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena".
It's a trend that should be a great cause for concern. In a time when the rest of the world is rapidly surpassing the U.S. in scientific and mathematical fields, I find it worrisome that there are so many parents who are willing to shortchange their child's education and understanding of basic biology.
What I've found from my experience is that the people who "disagree" with evolution fail to actually comprehend it. Those who dispute it often times seem like they don't entirely understand the subject.
In regard to evolution itself, the elements of fact and theory should be relatively easy to understand. The consensus of the scientific world is that evolution is occurring, but the principles by which it occurs comprise the actual "theory" of evolution.
Morphologically and genetically, organisms that are alive today are far different from the ones that were alive in the past. Genetic and fossilized evidence very clearly demonstrates this idea, and the mechanism has been observed to occur. This idea that a species have changed over time can be thus regarded as the fact of evolution.
However, the theories of evolution encompass concepts like natural selection, mutation, migration patterns, and other mechanisms that can cause such changes to occur. Obviously, we can regard this as the theory of evolution, as such mechanisms are well up for debate.
Evolution falls in line with typical scientific theory, explained as being an "explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena".
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 13
RickK
posted 3/11/10 @ 8:54 AM CST
Good article, Jonathan.
One comment. You say: "Intelligent design may still be a theory". In the scientific sense of the word "theory", Intelligent Design is NOT a "scientific theory", it is only a hypothesis. (Continued…)
Alasandra
posted 3/11/10 @ 12:04 PM CST
Christian based materials do not dominate the growing home-school market contrary to what is stated at The Raw Storey. Many homeschoolers choose to buy textbooks from mainstream publishers. (Continued…)
Lynda Altman
posted 3/11/10 @ 12:04 PM CST
Great article! I am a homeschool parent who does not buy into the intelligent design or creationism garbage. Trying to find high quality high school science texts without ID is extremely difficult. (Continued…)
Alasandra
posted 3/11/10 @ 12:16 PM CST
Christian based materials do not dominate the growing home-school market contrary to what is stated at The Raw Storey. Many homeschoolers choose to buy textbooks from mainstream publishers. (Continued…)
M-Creek
posted 3/11/10 @ 2:32 PM CST
Jonathan,
I thought this was an excellent article. Direct, concise, and accurate on all the important parts. The only addition I would make is to note that the word "theory" can also mean (and does mean, in science) an overarching framework into which the observable data fit. (Continued…)
Loren Mavromati
posted 3/11/10 @ 3:20 PM CST
There are some homeschoolers who use texts like this, but they are not representative of the majority of homeschoolers in the country.
The organization quoted, HSLDA, is an organization that attracts Christian homeschoolers, so of course figures based on surveys of their membership are going to show a much higher percentage of homeschoolers that claim religion is a major factor in their educational decision, and of course those families are going to be more likely than secular homeschoolers to use religious based texts. (Continued…)
Gerald Berry
posted 3/11/10 @ 6:09 PM CST
Wrong wrong wrong. Macro evolution is based on faith. None of you Darwinists has explained where the first life came from. Would any of you "scientists" like to explain it to me? No? Read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer and you can throw away your copy of the "Origin of Species". (Continued…)
Melissa
posted 3/11/10 @ 8:26 PM CST
Rick, the theory of evolution from common ancestry is not testable, is not observable, and is not falsifiable. It offers a hypothetical mechanism loosely based on natural selection. (Continued…)
FreeEnterprise
posted 3/12/10 @ 7:57 AM CST
The problem with evolution is the same credibility issue with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Both involve scientists "massaging" data to fit with their preconceived ideology, or doctrine. (Continued…)
SCS
posted 3/12/10 @ 9:43 AM CST
This commentary is loaded with inaccuracies, false statements and is extremely disingenuous. You provide zero evidence for any of your assertions. If you are going to make these claims then you need to support them with evidence. (Continued…)
Post a Comment