How is evolution being taught in classes?

Question

Hopefully a biology teacher will answer this. I'm trying to make sure that evolution is the dominent, if only theory being taught about how we came to be. I can't really remember much about how evolution was taught in 7th grade and I'm not taking bio now so I'd appreciate any descriptions from people.

Basically the arguement I'm presenting in my debate is that evolution is being taught too much like fact. There is a great amount of proof, observations and facts to back it up, but ultimately there is no way to say that the theory of evolution, more specifically neo-darwinism is positively the right explanation for how we came to be, seeing as no one has eye witness accounts of what happened.

Therefore evolution should not be taught like a fact, other scientific theories should be offered, and the problems with evolution should be mentioned. Providing a wider view on this topic will provide students with a better education. We cannot close the minds of children and stop them from trying to find a better explanation for why we're here.

I know evolution isn't being taught as a fact right now, but I seriously can't remember anyone telling me it was a scientific thoery back then. All the things that it stated sounded just like fact to me. I know there definitely were no alternative theories or criticism to the theory as well. Any more details would be appreciated and your opinions on my statement about alternative theories, specifically intelligent design ( assuming I can prove it's a scientific theory) being taught would be great.

Answer 1

To understand how *any* topic in science is taught, you need to look at other topics, not just evolution. That is where you can understand the meanings of words like 'fact', 'law', 'theory', 'proof', etc. BEFORE the more *specific* topics like evolution, gravity, atoms, light, heliocentrism, etc.



So lets do some warm-ups before we tackle evolution.





Case 1: Heliocentrism (helios=sun). The theory that the earth and planets orbit the sun. It's hard to imagine a time when people thought the universe circled the earth, and you might think that schools teach heliocentrism now as 'fact'. But Copernicus and Galileo did not "prove" it. They looked at the behavior of the planets as an observed 'fact' and set out to *explain* that fact. And they discovered additional observed 'facts' to support that idea (the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, the timing of eclipses and transits, etc.). This is why we call heliocentrism a 'theory' to this day. Not because any scientist seriously doubts that the sun is the center of the solar system ... but because the word 'theory' means *EXPLANATION*. Anything that can be explained by the idea of the sun at the center of the solar system is considered part of the 'theory of heliocentrism'.



Lesson 1: A 'fact' is not "proved" to be true ... it is *observed* to be true.



Lesson 2: A 'theory' is not a 'fact-in-doubt' ... a theory is an *EXPLANATION* for facts.



Lesson 3: Avoid the word "proof" ... use the word *evidence*.



Now, a student might be forgiven for thinking that it is taught as a 'fact' that the sun is the center of the solar system. That is so far beyond question in today's age, that nobody doubts it. But we should never forget that ultimately, it is NOT considered "proved" ... NOTHING in science is considered "proved". It is just what the overwhelming evidence points to.



In fact, it's important to remember that one of the objections used against Galileo (by church astronomers) is that it had no *mechanism*. Galileo couldn't answer the WHY. WHY would the moon stay in orbit around the earth, and the moons of Jupiter around their planet, and the planets stay in orbit around the sun. Galileo could not answer this question. That had to wait for Isaac Newton.



Which brings us to ...





Case 2: Gravity. By Isaac Newton's time, nobody was questioning the 'fact' that an apple released from a tree will fall downwards. So the image of a an apple falling on Newton's head and giving him the "idea" of gravity is iconic, but silly. Also by Newton's time heliocentrism was as close to an accepted 'fact' as anything else in science. So it is silly to think that Isaac Newton "proved" that apples fall to the ground or the the planets orbit the sun, and that this is what we call the 'theory' of gravity.



No, what Newton did was come up with an *EXPLANATION* for these facts. His insight was recognizing that an apple falling to the ground, and Jupiter orbiting the sun, are two aspects of the *SAME PHENOMENON AT DIFFERENT SCALES*. It is so easy to forget just how mind-boggling this is to understand that an apple and the planet Jupiter are two aspects of the same stuff! We take this for granted as 'fact' ... but it is NOT fact, it is 'theory.'



Again, a student would be forgiven for thinking that "gravity is taught as fact." And a careless science teacher might say that "gravity is a fact" when referring to the fact that apples always fall to the ground, and that this is called the "law of gravity" as if it is a super-duper "proved" fact.



Lesson 4: A "law" is not a "proved theory". Again, NOTHING is "proved" in science. A 'law' is an expression of 'fact' ... it is not "proved" to be true, it is *observed* to be true ... and we call it a 'law' only because we observe it to be true everywhere in the universe (we can look through telescopes and see that it applies to planets and galaxies).



Lesson 4: The same word can be used for both a 'fact' and a 'theory'. Namely, the observed 'fact' you are trying to explain (apples fall), and the theory that *EXPLAINS* that fact (a force exists between all matter). We still refer to the "theory of gravity" ... but it would be silly to think this means that the claim that apples fall to the ground is "just a theory."



Lesson 5: In nature, the same phenomenon can act at *hugely* different scales. We can look at the behavior of apples falling to the ground, and say "if gravity can cause that to happen to an apple, then a large amount of mass can cause a large amount of gravity."





Case 3: Light. This is an example of where two competing 'theories' battled it out. Our friend Newton thought that light consisted of tiny particles ("corpuscles" he called them). Others, like Huygens and Maxwell, thought that light was a *wave*. Both camps had specific experiments that showed conclusively that light had "particle-like" behavior, or "wave-like behavior". It wasn't until Einstein and Planck that we developed a new model called the *photon*, which had properties of both particles and waves.



Again it's important to remember that the photon was not "proven" ... it is not a 'fact'. The photon is a *theory*. But it would be a mistake to call it "just a theory." No reputable physicist doubts that photon theory makes an excellent *EXPLANATION* for the properties of light.



Lesson 7: Science has many cases where two competing theories coexisted ... and were later reconciled.



Lesson 8: However, it is important that supporters of the two theories have *EVIDENCE* to support them. Without *evidence*, it cannot be called a 'theory.'





So all that background is necessary to examine evolution and Intelligent Design. It is absolutely vital that students understand how words like 'fact', 'law', 'theory', and 'proof' are used accurately ... so that they are not *misused* when an emotionally charged topic like evolution comes along.



(Aside: The general topics described above are MUCH more important than evolution! And this is why it is so tragic that our science education system teaches this so badly. Every time I hear somebody utter the HORRIBLE phrase "just a theory" ... or use the word "proof" when they mean *evidence* ... or ask why evolution is "still" a theory and not a "law" ... I just cringe. I recognized yet another person who will grow up never understanding the BASICS of how science works!)





First, just like the word 'gravity', the word 'evolution' is used to describe *both* a 'fact' and the 'theory' that *EXPLAINS* that fact. The 'fact' of evolution is the idea that species *change over time*. Period. That is not "proved" to be true ... that is *observed* to be true. No reputable scientist seriously doubts it.



But no reputable scientist seriously doubts that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection provides an excellent *EXPLANATION* for the fact that species change over time. So people who call it "just a theory" are just confused about basic science. The 'theory of evolution' is not the 'claim-in-doubt' that things evolve (change over time). The theory of evolution is the explanation for WHY things change over time. And it is also all the other things that this same 'change over time' explains. Like the origins of species (which is where Darwin got the title for his book).



Darwin's insight into evolution is similar to Newton's insight into gravity ... namely that the SAME PHENOMENON CAN OPERATE AT HUGE SCALES. Just as Newton proposed that large amounts of mass can produce large amounts of gravity ... Darwin proposed that large amounts of TIME can produce large amounts of CHANGE (evolution). And that this explains why there are so many, significantly different species.



So is evolution taught as 'fact'? Well the idea that species change over time is taught as fact because it IS fact ... observed fact.



But the question you are asking is whether the idea of shared ancestry as a consequence of that change-over-time is taught as fact (as this is what Intelligent Design challenges ... not the FACT that species change, but the explanation for WHY species change).



And in that case you could be forgiven for thinking that this is indeed taught as 'fact' ... and a careless teacher or book might leave that impression.



But it is more correct to understand that the theory of evolution is called a 'theory' because it is the best *EXPLANATION* for the fact of evolution (the fact that species change over time).





So what about Intelligent Design? There is absolutely nothing wrong in science with considering competing 'theories' ... but to be called a 'theory' it needs to have *EVIDENCE*.



It is not enough to claim to have evidence *against* Darwinian evolution. You need to have evidence *in favor* of an Intelligent Designer. Some way of testing whether such a Designer actually exists.



(Aside: I am NOT an atheist ... my point is to ask whether there is *EVIDENCE* of ANY 'Designer', God or not, that has the capacity and motive for doing the kind of small-scale tinkering proposed by Intelligent Design advocates.)



I sincerely hope that helps.

Answer 2

I think what you're talking about is a failing of science education as a whole rather than specifically evolution. Unfortunately, in science classes we are often taught a series of facts that we must memorize, and take as truth. When you get into the higher levels of education, science is taught as more of a method - "this is the evidence, this is how it was interpreted, and these are the conclusions."



One thing you have to realize, though, is that complex conclusions can never truly be "fact". It has nothing to do with "holes" in evolution - it's a property of science as a whole. The same can be said of the theory of gravity, the cell theory, etc. Theories are never truly fact because our knowledge of the universe is, and always will be, incomplete. As we increase our knowledge, the theories change, and become better explanations of the world. So, even though they aren't truly "fact", they're the best explanation that we have.



As a side note, though, intelligent design is not a theory. That's not opinion - it's a basic fact. ID was created as a political ploy to introduce religion into the classroom, it was ruled as Creationism in court, it makes no testable predictions, and is supported by no observational evidence. It fits none of the definitions of a theory.

Answer 3

Evolution is taught--or should be taught, if it isn't-- in classes because it is the only theory for the origin of species for which there is substantial evidence, and there is no evidence that falsifies it.



You don't need to have actually seen evolution occurring in order to accept that it did occur. If the evidence massively supports the idea that it did occur (which it does), then it is rational to accept that it occurred.



As an analogy, there might not have been an eyewitness to the commission of a murder, but the prosecution presents a substantial amount of forensic and other evidence showing that the accused committed the crime. If the defense attorney tells the jury that none of them witnessed the crime and therefore they should ignore the evidence and find the defendant not guilty, should that argument be taken seriously?



If the other "theories" in opposition to evolution have no substantial evidence to support them, why should valuable class time be taken to present them? And that is particularly so if those other theories actually are based on falsehoods and misrepresentation of the facts.



You did not state what the "problems with evolution" are. Please give us a few examples so we can see what points you are trying to make to justify your position.

Answer 4

Let's look at an alternate theory: atomic theory. As you progress through increasing levels of study, increasingly complex models of the atom are taught as facts. Schrodinger's equation is not appropriate for 7th grade. This does not mean that alchemy should be taught as an alternative.



There are no alternative theories to either evolution or atomic theory. Scientific Creationism was repackaged as Intelligent Design*, but it does not qualify as a theory. ID has no experimental evidence. It's central tenets have been rejected by examining the evidence. In fact, in order to call it science, its proponents had to redefine science.



Students should be encouraged to dig deeper. Feeding students religion as an alternative to science runs counter to that goal and is a waste of educational time.

Answer 5

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that explains how life changes through time. The term theory should be understood to be an explanation of the physical evidence and not as used in common parlance meaning a speculation. There is a vast amount of physical evidence supporting evolution by natural selection, and the amount of confirming evidence grows daily. There is no alternate scientific theory that can better explain all of the physical evidence for evolution by natural selection. The evidence comes from many sources including astronomy, geology, chemistry, physics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, paleoecology, and molecular biology. Among scientific theories, there is more evidence from so many different sources that support evolution by natural selection than there is evidence for any other scientific theory.



Intelligent design is just another name for scientific creationism which itself is another name for Biblical Genesis. This is religion, not science. Please read the judge's decision in the lawsuit Kitzmiller versus Dover School Board. In this case, the school board was sued because it wanted to insert intelligent design into science classes. The judge correctly found that intelligent design is both illogical and is not a science, that it is religious, and that it violates the separation of church and state. His analysis of the scientific basis of intelligent is well reasoned as is his analysis of the other legal issues in the case. It makes for a fascinating reading. In any event, the school board lost the case and had to pay damages of $1 million to the plaintiff. Thus, it would be financially dangerous for any school to introduce intelligent design into the classroom because the result would be similar to that in the Kitzmiller case, i.e., the school board would lose the case and have to spend millions of dollars in the process.

Answer 6

What is going right into a technological information college room could be desperate by skill of scientists. this is their field of diagnosis. EDIT: Technically "technological information" isn't a field of diagnosis itself, yet you get the factor. there are a number of fields of diagnosis interior of technological information. i'm an engineer. once I went to varsity, I found out engineering from textbooks written by skill of engineers. The professors had PhDs in engineering. on the junior intense college, or intense college tiers, the textile can study by skill of a instructor (particularly than a PhD interior the sector). however the textile could nevertheless be desperate by skill of the experts of their very own field of diagnosis. So if the college room is approximately ABC, the experts interior the sector of diagnosis of ABC could be sure the coursework. Why you may permit the pupils come to a decision, or the moms and dads come to a decision, or a school board come to a decision, or politicians come to a decision? they shouldn't come to a decision the coursework for some thing they only have a layman’s comprehend-how of.