Creationism should not be taught in schools

Thank you to Con for taking up my challenge and debating this topic with me. I understand your argument to be for a debate in science classrooms about Darwin's natural selection and a level of criticism being put against it. Con begins his argument with: 'It is quite prevalent for scientific ideas to be found wrong.' I agree with this point that it is common for scientific theories to be superseded by better ones and the example of the development of the laws of gravity is valid. I would also like to remind him that the theory of evolution is not a new idea. The earliest form of evolution is over 2000 years old with Aristotle"s 'Spontaneous Generation'. Evolution is the refined descendant of many similar theories.(1)However this is a theory within the realms of Physics which is generally much more theoretical than Biology. Within Biology and focusing specifically on evolution, solid evidence has cemented the theory over the last hundred years and it is of high importance that Evolution has the full support modern scientific circles and academia alike(2). Evolution is a theory which has sound evidence supporting it(3); more than many scientific theories taught in the classroom. Science is a process. The methods of science are much more important than any particular result. Indeed, the self-correcting process of science has on rare occasions resulted in big shifts in thinking. Within living memory, geologists dismissed the idea that the crust of the planet could move as crazy. Now we know that plate tectonics has radically reshaped our planet. However the work of scientists in accredited institutes and universities is of a very different importance to the teaching of science in the classroom. The role of scientists is of course, to come up with new theories and improve ones we already have. The role of science in the classroom is to build the foundations of a solid understanding of modern scientific processes and to give students the ideas of the most important new scientific theories and principles of modern day science. Why then is Evolution, a well established theory, deserving of such profuse criticism and among all scientific theories the most scrutinised? The answer is the modern creationist movement that has gained pace over the last twenty years. Institutions like the Discovery institute and American Freedom Alliance among many others have masked creationist principles as legitimate scientific opposition to Evolution(4). The most prominent among these is the 'Intelligent Design' movement put forward by the discovery institute. In 2005 Intelligent Design found to be unsuitable to be taught in Pennsylvania schools. 'Judge John Jones of the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that requiring intelligent design in public school science lessons amounts to promotion of religion, and is therefore unconstitutional. In doing so, he sided with mainstream science organisations and rebutted almost every argument made in favour of intelligent design, calling it the "progeny of creationism" '(5) Con argues that there should be a general scientific principle to "Teach the controversy". This very phrase is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute and although I could not agree more that scientific theory should be closely scrutinised at the academic level and this is paramount to improvement in science this is not the place of secondary and high-school education as although there could be a lively debate about evolution there could be no alternative or improvement put forward at that level because the students have not received PhD. Level scientific training. This kind of criticism in the classroom even if it originated with good intent would undoubtedly be high jacked by creationists. And although con puts forward a convincing case showing where various scientific principles have been superseded by better theories creationism I think we can both agree is not a valid principle to take the place of evolution nor ever will be. No matter how much creationists cover up their principles, for example their attendance at many scientific conferences(6) at its core it is pseudo-science based on religion. Religion has no place in the science class. Religion is not science and never will be, it is a dangerous game to begin to try and prove faith with science and one that is causing enough damage to worldwide science already without it being injected into the classroom as a wolf in sheep"s clothing; Creationism dressed up as Intelligent Design or anything similar. In his final paragraph Con makes the point that Evolution is 'only a theory'. I would like to remind him that in the scientific use 'Theory' takes on a different meaning to its use in the everyday(7). In science 'Theory' is A supposition of a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: 'Darwin's Theory of Evolution'. In the everyday sense we use it to describe what is supposed to happen, especially in a negative context: e.g. 'In theory the hovercraft with fly'. In his closing words Con asks me to elaborate on what I meant by 'unhealthy for society'. In the context I was using (the criticism of science from a religious base) I meant that well established scientific fact should not be doubted because it is in conflict with literal interpretations of religious scripture. Cons position is that of a doubt of science, which as I have made clear I support at the level of science that could come up with a better theory but not in the classroom. A student in this context could be easily pushed into doubting science and further fuelling the neo-creationist(8) movement. In my opinion any modern attempt in the U.S to fuel a debate against Evolution is a cover for a much less wholesome idea of trying to teach students creationism in the science class. Again I thanks Con for joining me in this interesting debate. In the next round I hope Con to elaborate on this phrase: 'If we do not criticize science, we are doomed to repeat it.' Sources: (1) http://assets.cambridge.org... (2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 'Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science' Elliott Sober http://assets.cambridge.org... (3) 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' Richard Dawkins (4) http://www.newscientist.com... (5) http://www.newscientist.com... (6) http://www.newscientist.com... (7) Oxford English Dictionary: Theory (8) http://www.icr.org...