"Spread the Word"

Evolution happened. Life on this Earth as we know it is here because it evolved to be here. The evidence is irrefutable.

There is a huge movement out "there" to stop teaching evolution in public schools. There is another huge movement to teach other "explanations" alongside evolution. These proposals are just plain wrong. They advocate teaching religious perspectives (and not very good ones) in a SCIENCE classroom. We cannot let this happen!

I have perspective on this issue that most do not. I deal with evolution on a daily basis. You see, I am a biochemist. I study DNA and proteins, including their sequences. I have to use evolution to bolster my arguments and to formulate my ideas. I have seen time and time again the subtle changes that occur from species to species, moving up the ladder. There are countless examples where the conserved protein sequence from a species of yeast matches that in a fish which matches the same thing in humans. We need to teach our children the scientific skills to recognize how life got where it is today in order to make it better tomorrow.

Teaching children in public schools about creationism or intelligent design would be detrimental to future discoveries, ideas, and scientific discussion. You will potentially turn off some of the best minds to considering a career in science. You will cause confusion between what is science and what is religion.

The National Academy of Sciences has put together a book that is mostly about why evolution is the only scientifically testable and the only scientifically accepted theory that addresses the formation of life as we know it. The book does discuss a little bit about why the other ideas are not science, too. Because they are nice people, they have also put out a seven (the eighth page doesn’t count) page pamphlet that summarizes the book. Give it a read. They are right.

The ideas of creationism and/or intelligent design have many, many holes in them that are inexplicable. We cannot teach these ideas to our children in public schools. Let’s teach religious ideas in church. A science classroom is a place for science. Evolution is tested and supported by science.

Am I way off base here? I'm really, honestly curious what people think. Please let me know.


26 comments:

Amy said...

Sorry Joel. There is a reason it is technically called the "theory" of evolution. There is evidence of evolution within a species, not from species to species.

Until there is more proof, of which I don't believe there ever will be, I think there is nothing WRONG with teaching multiple ideas, ie. theories, for the origination of the world and mankind. Including what various religions believe.

Outlawing all things religious, be it christian, muslim, buddhism ideas for the creation teach religious tolerance. Which I think is a great part of the public school experience: you have to learn to be tolerant of others and their ideas/beliefs.

Amy said...

ok, that last paragraph is confusing.

What I meant to say was: Outlawing all things religious, be it christian, muslim, buddhism ideas for the mechanism of creation, decrease religious tolerance.

You've got to be exposed to different ideas and beliefs to learn how to function with persons of variable backgrounds.

Unknown said...

I agree with Amy, to a point. It would be a bad idea to only teach the theory of evolution in schools, though I would never want to see religious beliefs taught in science class. Students should be exposed to the religions of the world in social studies (or whatever it is - is it sad that I don't really remember the class names from back then?). Anyway, Amy's exactly right that teaching kids about religion leads to tolerance and understanding. But you're right, Joel, that they're two totally separate subjects.

Kids should learn that science itself evolves; they should understand that some prevailing theories have withstood the test of time, others have been debunked, and others are yet to be tested. That said, I don't think evolution is ever, ever getting debunked, and there's no need to drop a caveat at the beginning of class, or anything like that.

In public school, you wouldn't want to teach kids that creationism is true. You teach them, "Christians believe..."; "Muslims believe..."; etc. I wish I'd been taught more about the religions of the world as a kid.

Anonymous said...

Being a Historian of Religion, here's my two cents - I agree with Joel totally - Evolution should be tought in the science room. End of story (Amy, I challenge you to define "species" - is one "species" of sparrow different from another, if so, should we go up to "finches" for our definition of a "species" of bird? Where does it stop?) - It is what it is - the religions need to accept that (many have - Hindu and Buddhist being a couple) and approach doctrine from that light - how does that theory work with their doctrine.
As far as "other theories" on the beginning of life, I totally think that World Religions and Philosphy should be two required classes in High School (if, for nothing else, so that I can a have a job to fall back on :) I think they are totally useful and necessary subjects for understanding the world around us and what other people thing/feel. Then, religious development is up to the individual and family to cultivate - however they best see fit - and they can take the ideas they learned in school and church and wherever else and cultivate them and form the paradigm that works best for them. However, one religion should never be taught in school over another. If we were to teach Judeo-Christian Creationism in school, we'd also have to teach things like the Rig Veda and we ought to look at...I don't know, the Pulpul Voh as well. To have the public schools elevate one religious tradition over the other is wrong.

The Wizzle said...

I actually just brought this up in relief society last week (not quite this bluntly, by any means) and I can't quite tell how it went over. :)

But I agree that science classes should be teaching the best of science as we currently understand it. Of course, our scientifically held "beliefs" evolve as we learn more, and we come to understand things more competely. I think the scientific method is one of the greatest tools we as human beings have - so many wonderful discoveries have been made about this world around us, so much good has been done, and I think it's important to teach children how that works and that you can't just start with a premise and then construct your evidence to support it, and ignore any findings that you're afraid might contradict your original belief. Not to say that this is what strict creationism believers do - but I think this is a defense mechanism that religious persons often employ when faced with creationism as a valid scientific theory.

Creationism and evolution don't contradict at all in my mind. There is so, so very much we don't know, and probably never will know, about both "theories" that it seems silly to get riled up over one vs. the other. Why not just dive in with an open mind and see what there is to see?

Comparative religions class in high school would be awesome! Kids need to know way more than they do about their place in the world as a whole and how they fit into the "big" picture. Just like by learning a second language (and third, etc) you learn more about your own language. It can be really hard to approach something with any kind of clarity when you've grown up with it so closely, speaking or using it every day, surrounded by people who share that in common with you.

Jackson Howa said...

Of course you're not way off base. Science should be taught in the science classroom; "magic" has no place there.

Of course there should be classes in schools to tell students what people of many religions and cultures believe. Diversity is an important value, and education in that area will benefit students.

Amy: I know this might come off as rude, but it's not intended that way. This is a sincere suggestion: learn something about the scientific method. Science is not a religion, like Christianity. It is a method for testing the world around us to come up with a best guess as to what might be going on. When someone's idea is tested over, and over, and over again by many different people in many different ways and it still appears to be accurate, it is then called a "theory."

It's not called a theory because there is significant doubt as to its accuracy. It is called a theory because, technically, there's always a slim chance that things aren't the way we think. We might find new evidence someday.

Ever heard of the "theory" of gravity? There's always that off chance that the apple won't fall when we let go of it, but it's not very likely at all.

Anyway, Creationism is not a theory, it's a fun story that can't be scientifically tested. It has no place in a science class.

Jackson Howa said...

Edit: Actually, I should have said the "theory of gravitation." Gravity is a force, explained by gravitational theory. Let's not get technical though...

Joel said...

Amy - I think that what you mean when you say there is no evidence of evolution from species to species is that the animals and plants on the earth today do not share common ancestors. That's how it sounds. If that is indeed what you mean, the statement is just plain undeniably wrong.

That would be akin to the following: I think that babies come from storks. You think that babies grow in a mother's uterus and are birthed. ALL of the scientific evidence in the world says that you are right. Still, I shun the 'theories' of conception, a mother's stomach getting progressively larger, feeling random movements in the mother's belly, and the coincidence that just as the kid shows up, the mother is skinny again. I will disregard all THAT evidence and continue to proport that storks are solely responsible for human babies joining families.

What would you think about the stork person's argument? That's how your argument sounds to me. Really. Not to be mean, but that's literally how much evidence you are tossing out the window with that one sentence.

Everybody - I'm not opposed to kids being well rounded through school. But Rick's right about this. They need to be taught in a seperate class that COMPLETELY differenciates itself from science. And many more of the religious views of how the world began, life got here, etc. need to be covered. I am still not thrilled about my tax dollars going to pay for such a class, but I wouldn't oppose the effort. I'll just think of it as your tax dollars. Mine were used elsewhere! :)

Yes, science evolves. Things that were once held as indisputable scientific fact (i.e. the earth is the center of the universe, the world is flat, etc.) have been shown (indisputably) to have been incorrect. We now have new facts. Evolution has withstood a period of human existance that has seen literally unbelievable scientific expansion. It has withstood more testing then almost anything else in history. Nobody has come up with a better idea. If they do, great, I'll accept it if the evidence fits. If nobody does, the Theory of Evolution stands with the Pythagrean Theorem and the Theory of Gravity and the Thoery of Relativity. Scientifically accepted fact.

Does anybody know if the chruch has an official postition? I've looked in the past and haven't had any luck...

Amy said...

don't worry people. I'm not offended, I don't think you're being mean. However, I am off to a fun 15 hour day in the city so I'll write and clarify THIS WEEKEND.

Anonymous said...

woohooo! Joel agreed with me! Man, that made my day...someday...someday, Amy, I'll get you to agree with me too, and my purposes will be accomplished.

Joel, I've looked into that quite a bit - The early brethren had quite a bit to say about it - in Brigham's 12 (that is the twelve at Brigham Young's time) a bunch of them had tons to say - I'd admonish you to search through the Journal of Discourses and look for stuff like "pre-Adamic Man" and stuff - Me personally, I adhere to the pre-adamic man theory - but that's just my own theory that works for me. Everyone has to figure out the way that the two can be best reconciled in their own mind (now don't be like, "we'll only know when God reveals it to us..." - God wants us to come up with theories and then be open to revelation when it comes. Now, don't let the Journal of Discourses shake your testimony (for some reason, everyone has a fear that the Journal of Discourses will shake everyone's testimony) but it at least provides some interesting THEORIES on the origins of man and how that ties into evolution as the natural process whereby God created the earth (evolution with divine direction).

Joseph F Smith was kind of in the thick of it and tried to do some smoothing over during his presidency - there are a bunch of talks given by the first presidency at his time, but basically, he said, "A good motto for young people to adopt, who are determined to delve into philosophic theories, is to search all things, but be careful to hold on only to that which is true. The truth persists, but the theories of philosophers change and are overthrown. What men use today as a scaffolding for scientific purposes from which to reach out into the unknown for truth, may be torn down tomorrow, having served its purpose; but faith is an eternal principle through which the humble believer may secure everlasting solace. It is the only way to find God." - - I'd say it's pretty much held on, and has taken root (along side those other theories previously mentioned) There's been lots of intimations about how evolution is a viable principal by leadership in the church, and, every semester at least once there is a special lecture by someone in the science dept. or the rel. dept. to explain how evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive and can work side by side in Latter-day Saint Theology - we are actually the ONLY Christian Religion where this works - because of our unique theology - we should be thankful for that.

Anonymous said...

Oh, two questions that intrigued me - Jackson, you called creationism "a fun story." I'm curious if you feel that it has any truthful basis behind it, or if it's just an alagory or parable. (that would extend to the Garden of Eden Story as well).

And Joel, why wouldn't you want your tax dollars to support world religions/philosophy courses? What could possibly be the downside of youth learning that that would cause you to not want to support that?

Joel said...

I'm not opposed to world religions nor philosophy. I was just saying that I would not be in support of teaching kids the "wrong" things about the origins of the world. Of course I don't have a problem with teaching the beliefs of others for knowledge's sake. It was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry my sarcasm didn't translate.

Kelly said...

Interesting discussion. Here are some thoughts from the physical science perspective (my training is plasma physics):
I have long found it interesting to see the defense mechanisms triggered by apparent contradictions. Smart people with strong religious convictions, for example, can get defensive when they see with natural eyes something that disagrees with spiritual eyes. It's a challenge of faith (see Ether 12) and we all cope differently.

I agree with Wizzle. In 7 years of tertiary education in physics, I have never found proof that God doesn't exist or that He didn't create this amazing universe that we are trying to understand. I do get confused when we try to restrict His creative options.

In the meantime, we try to learn all we can. Everything we learn is in the context of historical and social forces that can be hard to see past. In response to Jackson's encouragement to learn about the scientific method, I would endorse studying the social side of science (Thomas Kuhn, for example).

And finally, and completely politically, I think the economic ramifications of not studying math and science are too large to quibble over which religions to teach about in social studies. Although nice to learn about, you won't find these "soft" subjects in Chinese or Indian elementary schools, where the kids that will drive the global economy of the future are currently learning trigonometry at age 6.

Amy said...

Ok, here are some of my thoughts.

Rick, I think scientists waste too much time on classification. Some is necessary. That is how we know viruses are different from bacteria. However, a lot is unnecessary, like trying to decide if a penguin is closer to a fish or a bird. How does that impact my life? I just don't care. For me, if it has feathers it is a bird. If it breathes underwater for 100% of its life it is a fish. I think crabs and lobsters are fancy insects. Yuck. I don't enjoy pandering back and forth on details that don't affect the majority of the population's life, like whether a yellow-tipped sparrow is closer to a canary or a black sparrow. It is a bird. Thats all I need to know.

I do think Darwin was right-on in some aspects. For example, I do believe that the idea of Survival of the Fittest is verifiable. We see it in action everyday on some level. I believe that species adapt. If you want to call this evolution because the species are adapting to various environmental stressors, so be it. Viruses evolve. Look at the flu shots that have to be changed every year, or the HIV virus whose offspring is not identical to itself.

No Joel, I was NOT saying that I don't believe fish and plants and humans don't share common ancestors. Scientists define common ancestors by genetic coding, etc, and with more and more research being done in DNA, acid/protein sequencing, etc they are finding similar codes, as you stated in your original post I believe. So obviously they will think that we all have common ancestors. Is this the case? Prove it. You can't. Its an idea, or a belief. Not an irrefutable fact. This needs to be taught in classrooms. I do not think that JUST evolution should be taught in class because it isn't a fact. Everyone treats the whole microbe-turned-amoeba-turned-fish-turned-reptile-turned-bird-turned-animal-turned-human-turned-whatever as though it is a verifiable fact. It isn't. And I think that this should be made clear. Were any of you around at the creation of the world? If so I bet you don't remember it. I'm assuming everyone here believes that God created the world, as everyone seems to have testimonies that Christ is the Son of God, therefore you probably buy into the claim of the bible that the Lord created the world.

So, do we know how the world was created? Not absolutely. Yes, I'm using the word absolutely as definitive. You don't know how the Lord created the world, unless you have happened to have some way spiritual vision where you were able to see it and don't feel comfortable sharing that experience on this blog.

Do we as people, or as scientists, have ideas about how the world came to be? How plants and animals and humans came to populate the planet? Of course. However, these are IDEAS. Hypotheses. Theories. Not facts.

There are tons of arguments about this topic because it is not able to be proved with facts. Look at the argument Galileo had with the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago when he said the world was not the center of the universe but the sun was, and they said the sun cycled around the earth. They killed him for it. Why don't we still believe the sun moves around the earth? Because of facts. There are enough errors in Darwinism theory to fuel these arguments. Take the following quote, which I got from here: "For example, evolutionists generally consider "Natural Selection" to be the "cause" of evolution; in fact, if it is anything at all, it is the cause of only one thing, survival of organisms. In other words, it would be an "effect" of evolution, not a "cause" of it. (There need be no concern for those organisms who do not survive, another supposed effect of "Natural Selection")."
Or look article
or look here.

All of these sites have one thing in common: a lack of real proof that evolution clearly explains how we came to be and how the world came to be.

And so, because there is not absolute proof that evolution is definitively the way that we all came about, I don't think there is anything wrong with sharing different ideas about how we all came about. I'm not saying you should devote the entire lecture to a discourse on Native American Explanations for the Great River which gave Life to the Turtle Turned Earth. Or Christianity's bible. Or whatever. But do say something like "Darwin hypothesized that...etc....which we can see evidence of by looking at...etc." Don't say that it is an absolute fact. It isn't. And this is what bothers me about people who talk about evolution as though it is the great answer to all questions.

On the side, I agree with Kelly. Not enough emphasis is being done on the basics. Reading, Writing, Arithmetic: wouldn't it be nice to focus on these areas in school again?

And I think too much energy is wasted on the question How Did the World Come About to Life As We Know It? rather than focusing on what you're going to do with the life you have in the short time you're actually living on earth.

Jonathan said...

I am happy to admit that I am married to Amy. I love listening to her ideas and I often smile at what she says. I don't always agree, but I often do, and I always enjoy being with her. I have had a long week at work and don't have time to read all of what has been written and interpreted and commented on; however, I will add my two cents.

Here is what I figured out in my BIO130 class at BYU.

I see no conflict between saying that God created man and God created the world, or that God created something that evolved into something else and that God blew the breath of life into that something else.

I see no conflict with the ideas that God created something that then evolved into multiple other things.

I do have strong adamant conflicts with "Darwinian Evolution". I do not want Darwinian Evolution taught in schools ever. I have big issues with anyone who does want to teach Darwinian Evolution to my children. If you read Darwin's writings his theory is that living species in the world have evolved through survival of the fittest until eventually perfection was obtained and that the epitome of evolution is the proper English Gentleman. In Darwin's time the English empire covered the world and 1 in 5 people were under English rule. I have personally lived in England and I can tell you that the English gentleman is not perfection. Darwin taught that all other cultures and people of different colors were less evolved than the proper Englishman. I believe God created all men to be equal and that Darwin was wrong.


I believe that at the most basic level there are "intelligences that act" and "intelligences that are acted upon" (Alma 42).

Science keeps digging deeper to see what the basic building block of the universe is and I believe that when scientists embrace what they can learn through the Gift of the Holy Ghost and through the light of Christ they can truly be taught the secrets of the universe.

Without science I already know that "surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun." (Hel 12:15) and that by listening to God I can learn all things.

God is the ultimate scientist.

Jackson Howa said...

Thanks for telling us more about your positions, Amy and Jon.

Amy, after reading your longer post, I don't think you understand the concept behind evolutionary theory enough to have have come to a conclusion about it. I'd try to explain it, but I'm very tired and, frankly, I wouldn't be as good at it as a biology teacher would, so I'm not going to attempt it.

Jon, I've never read the writings of Darwin himself, but I'm up to date enough on current evolutionary theory to know that no scientist would assert that species have "reached perfection" or stopped evolving. Species change over time because the best adapted of the species survive and reproduce. Over vast amounts of time--more than you and I can wrap our brains around--the change caused by this process can be enormous, including speciation. The process is always happening and will continue to happen. There's nothing racist about evolutionary theory, because it does not assert which members of a species are the fittest, it only explains the mechanism through which change occurs.

If concerns about racism or racial superiority are your only issue with evolution, you should have no problem with having it in the classroom.

Rick: In response to your question, I honestly don't believe there is any historical accuracy in the Genesis creation story. The fossil record shows that what we know as modern man evolved over a very long time period, man certainly did not just appear one day out of the blue. I think that the early Jews needed a creation story, and that seemed like a good one.

I would say that it was intended more to demonstrate God's power in a way that was accessible to a scientifically undeveloped society and to introduce the early Jews to their God, Yahweh.

Joel said...

More information than I can read.

I prefer to rely on real, peer-reviewed articles on evolutionary evidence (not random websites). Like this. If a person tries to use real, quanitative evidence to disprove evolution, they can't. All of those arguements are based on emotion, speculation, religious teachings, and, in many cases, irrational refusal to accept evidence-based conclusions.

And nobody said Darwin was right about everything. He was wrong about a lot of things. He laid the foundation for the evolutionary theory of today. That's why we don't accept "Darwinism" as a correct theory today.

Other than that, I echo Jackson's responses to Amy and Jon.

All that we teach in science is the best conclusion that science has to offer at the time. We can only teach the best information we have. It is up to the student to come up with something better. The theory of evolution is the best fact we have, and it is the best by leaps and bounds. To teach any other views in a science classroom would be utterly irresponsible and wrong.

If you want to teach non-scientific views of the origins of the world and life, do it in a seperate setting, as we've discussed above.

Rick - Thanks for the thoughts and the leads for my personal searches.

Anonymous said...

jackson, I like your conclusions about Genisis creation account - I think its a reasonable and likely assumption. Like I said, I've become intimately aquainted with numerous creation accounts, and I think they all are trying to do what you said - that is, answer questions that were previously unanswerable about creation and God. I think God gave them the stories that best fit for their time and their world view, and I think GOD has given us an explaination that works best for our time and our world view. Not that previous explainations should be cast out, but that they should work together to give us a richer, fuller understanding - As far as the Garden of Eden and the divine heritage of man, that's a different story.

Amy said...

well Jackson, the post is about teaching evolution and ONLY evolution in classrooms. Regardless of what you believe, there are others who are not satisfied. As such, what is taught in classrooms can't be decided.

While "theories" may seem reasonable and may seem to explain God's actions, man's ability to understand all of God's actions is a slippery slope.

Anonymous said...

It sure feels like you all are arguing completely different points, so I am kind of confused as to how to comment, but I want to so...here's my thoughts.

I think people who go to school for a long time develop an elitist attitude... this coming from someone who needed a more speedily lucrative solution, and suffered the ills of a trade school stereotype, and naturally has an under-superiority complex. Which doesn't ultimately dismiss the validity of my original statement.

I think education is not the same as intelligence.

I think education is at fault in teaching opinions as fact.

I think evolution is possible, even though it appears too complex for me to understand.

I think evolution isn't gonna effect what I teach my children about creation.

I think we can understand the possiblities without sure knowledge.

I think if I know what the scriptures teach it will be easy to accept more truth cause they are the basic building blocks.

I don't think Adam and Eve are stories, allagories, or parables, but it would suck if they were.

I think if I had spent more time in "college," or, "university," it might matter more to me. (Good thing I prayed about that one.)

("Sorry," for all "the," quote marks, "but," "it," is kinda, "fun.")

Anonymous said...

I think you are right on (as do many others here). Religion should be taught in religious classes--if that is what we want to teach at public schools. Science should be taught in science classes. Also, evolution and christianity are not diametrically opposed to one another. Sure, we know that God created us in his own image and we know that we have not evolved from a different species, but whose to say whether God used evolution to evolve some the other species on this planet? I have no problem holding these two ideas in my head as the same time. Good luck with your work.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan wrote "I believe that when scientists embrace what they can learn through the Gift of the Holy Ghost and through the light of Christ they can truly be taught the secrets of the universe."

Don't presume that scientists are not religious. And don't presume that all scientists are Christian. We are blessed by having a variety of people with a variety of beliefs in our world, many of them in a position to help us all.

Anonymous said...

When I was a little girl, a Christian Reformed friend said, "There is no God." This really threw me-I was probably 6, and attending Blessed Sacrament School. I went home and told my mom, and she said to ask Karen "Where did people come from?" So I did. Karen, who was 2 years older than I, said: "They came from apes." Again I went home, and my mom said to ask: "Where did the apes come from?" Now I was getting it. Mom said that Karen could go farther and farther back, but at some point, God had to start things. Where did that tiny invisible-to-the-naked-eye first speck of cell come from? God. (And I know a cell is made up of tinier things, but I don't know the names of this stuff. I only gave birth to one who does!) SO I believe in evolution, but I imagine God up there laughing at our egos as we try to take Him out of the picture... Just a non-LDS thought...

Lincoln said...

Tangent: I would actually like to see religious beliefs taught in school -- but in the form of a religious literacy subject or World Religions; that is, not advocating a particular religion, but neutrally explaining the beliefs of the major world religions. The other day I heard a story about Mike Huckabee's biblical references in his speeches. It was stuff like the parable of the widow's mite, Jesus feeding the crowd with loaves and fishes, etc. They surveyed people on the street (who were all evangelicals who attended church regularly) and NONE of them got the references. It amazed me; I thought most Americans had a least a passing knowledge of Bible stories. Much of the decline can be attributed to the decline of reading in general, but at least part of it is because the Bible, even its literary aspects, is not taught in schools. Of course, if kids learned about the Bible it would be easy to push a Christian agenda, so you would have to be careful about that. But my position is, more education is almost always a good thing. So why not teach creationism alongside evolution? As Wizzle said, the two work in harmony anyway.

The Wizzle said...

I heard that segment too! It was fascinating. I thought terms like "widows mite" were part of the common vernacular at this point. Evidently not!

Amy said...

I just came across this article by Orson Scott Card that I think is very well written. He talks about the way people approach issues such as this one, and science & religion together. Click this quote of his father talking to him to read it. "Remember this, Scott. Whenever science and religion disagree, one or the other or both of them are wrong."