Is this a controversial opinion?
So, it occurred today to me that we should not teach evolution in schools. Or creationism. Not out of any ideological basis, but out of pragmatism.
Evolution doesn't save lives, or truly even meaningfully contribute to society except in the cutting edge medical sciences which are in their infancy. Creationism might save souls, but is utterly useless.
We should teach something else. Something actually useful, like a bit more meteorology, metrology, animal husbandry or ethics or whatever.
Comments178
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
maybe, like, let kids run schools
If something you learn in school is useful to you kind of depends on the career you are going for. School gives you a good basis of knowledge on different subjects. And evolution is basic biology. It is a theory backed by a lot of evidence. For me that was one of the most useful things i learned at school. I study biology now after all.
Apart from that. Out of all things "useless" you learn at school you choose evolution? It is not usless at all to know how evolution works. It gives us a better understanding of how things came to be as they are now and hiw things might change.
Apart from that. Out of all things "useless" you learn at school you choose evolution? It is not usless at all to know how evolution works. It gives us a better understanding of how things came to be as they are now and hiw things might change.
It is not usless at all to know how evolution works. It gives us a better understanding of how things came to be as they are now and hiw things might change.
Someone reading that comment and not knowing what evolution is about might ask: should evolution be taught as history?
I study biology now after all
My argument isn't really to not teach evolution at all. My argument is that it isn't so useful to teach so broadly and so early on. It then goes on to make the argument: great, so you understand evolution, but do you know how to behave around animals that can be dangerous? or recognise poisonous foods? or do cpr? They're perfectly valid parts of biology.
Teach evolution. It's a sound scientific theory, backed up by loads of evidence.
Don't teach creationism. I don't want my kids to learn what other people's imaginary friends "tell" them.
Don't teach creationism. I don't want my kids to learn what other people's imaginary friends "tell" them.
Generally, I see creationism being pushed where evolution is being pushed. Not teaching either until later in the educational process is what I'm really suggesting.
How much later would you suggest?
The last year or two of high school onwards, and then only to those studying the more advanced biology-specific courses.
I'm on the fence either way.
Darwin at the time he wrote Origins of Species, didn't in fact wrote it himself but compiled the ideas of his peers in one readable object
And historians can be corrupted with money as it doesn't pay well to be a historian in the first place.
Religion is part of our (European) history and as such we should teach the younger generations where we come from or how we came here but it shouldn't be introduced as dogma to be followed in fear of being ostracized.
Both are equal part propaganda and unwillingness to admit the other is right about some things.
Darwin at the time he wrote Origins of Species, didn't in fact wrote it himself but compiled the ideas of his peers in one readable object
And historians can be corrupted with money as it doesn't pay well to be a historian in the first place.
Religion is part of our (European) history and as such we should teach the younger generations where we come from or how we came here but it shouldn't be introduced as dogma to be followed in fear of being ostracized.
Both are equal part propaganda and unwillingness to admit the other is right about some things.
They should have taught me dancing in school because I think my chances for work were hindered when I couldn't do the right moves during my interviews. Now here I am without that dream desk job.
They should have taught me dancing in school
I agree. They should.
Dancing is a skill that allows you to participate more completely in the culture and society of wherever you live. I'd call that important
Maybe during the worst of the winter weather or in the lead up to any school dances, they could teach some basic dances, steps & etiquette, instead of gymnastics or whatever.
Though, that wouldn't affect your desk job 
Maybe we should take out advanced language, maths, and sciences while we're at it because the Average Joe doesn't use it in his daily life /s
We shouldn't be teaching advanced anything to all school kids. We should be teaching advanced things to school kids that have demonstrated aptitude and interest in those things.
forum.deviantart.com/community…
Political philosophy, and no questions asked or sources cited.
"
Please only discuss the more practical implications and applications of governance in this forum, as more theoretical implications and applications come under ‘Political Philosophy’, which is more appropriate in the Philosophy & Religion Forum."
Please only discuss the more practical implications and applications of governance in this forum, as more theoretical implications and applications come under ‘Political Philosophy’, which is more appropriate in the Philosophy & Religion Forum."" If you would like to discuss a political issue, please provide appropriate links and your thoughts and questions for discussion. Threads that contain no sources, contain the full text of an article/blog post/etc. or contain links alone with no thoughts or questions for discussion may be locked."
If you would like to discuss a political issue, please provide appropriate links and your thoughts and questions for discussion. Threads that contain no sources, contain the full text of an article/blog post/etc. or contain links alone with no thoughts or questions for discussion may be locked." Political philosophy, and no questions asked or sources cited. 
Evolution is a theory based on scientific research and process, therefore it is suitable for the classroom. Religion in general, as taught in the form of social studies, as one example, should be acceptable.
Evolution is suitable for the classroom, no debate there. The question I'm raising is to the usefulness of it.
meaningless humblejumble undo thoughtcrime
Genetic research reinforces theory of evolution, so in this day and age it doesn't make sense NOT to teach it. Evolution is the science of how populations of living organisms change over time in response to their environment. Understanding the modern synthesis of genetics and evolution is fundamental for understanding ourselves and furthering medical science. This understanding is also required in order to further research to the point we can predict changes, which may allow us to adequately respond to environmental changes that we are currently too limited to deal with.
The fact that this thread exists at all is proof it needs to be taught.
The fact that this thread exists at all is proof it needs to be taught.
Natural selection. Not evolution. This points out the problem. Theory is a part of the question, not the answer.
There are practical applications for an understanding of natural selection in immunology research, genetic research, probably even fuel and material R&D. Also might help prevent eco disasters caused by invasive exotics and encroachment exigencies.
theory of evolution makes for funny posters and bumper stickers.
There are practical applications for an understanding of natural selection in immunology research, genetic research, probably even fuel and material R&D. Also might help prevent eco disasters caused by invasive exotics and encroachment exigencies.
theory of evolution makes for funny posters and bumper stickers.
First of all, a scientific theory is defined as "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation". The dictionary uses the scientific theory of evolution as an example.
In the world of science "facts" and "answers" do not officially exist, because both words imply that the subject should no longer be questioned. Instead, when scientists reach a consensus they will tell you that the current evidence supports a "theory", which is much less conclusive and so it leaves room for more research.
Example: "after conducting extensive research and compiling the results with all available metadata, we were unable to find a link between vaccines and autism" is just scientist lingo for "I can assure you vaccines do not cause autism."
It's the semantics of science.
Secondly, like genetics, natural selection is a part of evolution. Natural selection and genetics are not mutually inclusive either.
Natural selection is widely accepted to be a direct contributor (not the sole contributor) to the process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics, which is the definition of evolution.
You don't have to ask a scientist, you can ask a dog breeder how it works. They will tell you that when you only let the dogs with the most desirable traits breed and you do this over multiple generations, you will get more pups with desirable traits with each generation; evolution through natural selection.
But this is not the only way in which species evolve.
The contents of the theory of evolution are always in review, but the history of the theory needs to be taught because the process of evolution itself is very real - even if we don't completely understand it yet - and future generations need this knowledge, even if only to learn from past mistakes so they don't waste their time when expanding on the theory themselves.
In the world of science "facts" and "answers" do not officially exist, because both words imply that the subject should no longer be questioned. Instead, when scientists reach a consensus they will tell you that the current evidence supports a "theory", which is much less conclusive and so it leaves room for more research.
Example: "after conducting extensive research and compiling the results with all available metadata, we were unable to find a link between vaccines and autism" is just scientist lingo for "I can assure you vaccines do not cause autism."
It's the semantics of science.
Secondly, like genetics, natural selection is a part of evolution. Natural selection and genetics are not mutually inclusive either.
Natural selection is widely accepted to be a direct contributor (not the sole contributor) to the process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics, which is the definition of evolution.
You don't have to ask a scientist, you can ask a dog breeder how it works. They will tell you that when you only let the dogs with the most desirable traits breed and you do this over multiple generations, you will get more pups with desirable traits with each generation; evolution through natural selection.
But this is not the only way in which species evolve.
The contents of the theory of evolution are always in review, but the history of the theory needs to be taught because the process of evolution itself is very real - even if we don't completely understand it yet - and future generations need this knowledge, even if only to learn from past mistakes so they don't waste their time when expanding on the theory themselves.
One can observe the results of natural selection within minutes or hours or days in a petri dish.
One may only speculate about events which happen in near geological time frames. Darwin knew that.
He also knew that such speculation had enough value to publish, supported by enough data to call it theory.
Questions which existed in his work still exist, though.
Calling evolution "fact" still requires assumptions not supported by that word.
Not many, but enough to be of concern.
One may only speculate about events which happen in near geological time frames. Darwin knew that.
He also knew that such speculation had enough value to publish, supported by enough data to call it theory.
Questions which existed in his work still exist, though.
Calling evolution "fact" still requires assumptions not supported by that word.
Not many, but enough to be of concern.
Evolution is observed, this is a fact. You said it yourself, you can observe the results of natural selection within minutes, hours or days in a petri dish. This result is called evolution.
Darwin did not know about genes, so his theory is dated. Many people's understanding of evolution is dated. This doesn't mean we need to throw out evolution as a concept, like you seem to be suggesting. It is clearly happening. It just means we should update our textbooks and be honest about what we do and don't know.
Darwin did not know about genes, so his theory is dated. Many people's understanding of evolution is dated. This doesn't mean we need to throw out evolution as a concept, like you seem to be suggesting. It is clearly happening. It just means we should update our textbooks and be honest about what we do and don't know.
Did not say throw it out. Said not to make a religion of an empirically unfinished concept, and call it fact.
The result in the petri dish is still called natural selection.
The theory of evolution extrapolates from natural selection( which is wholly empirically proven), not the other way about.
As you say, many do not understand Darwin's work. Let alone Watson and Crick's.
I agree with my whole being that we should be honest about what we do and don't know.
Submit Comment
The result in the petri dish is still called natural selection.
The theory of evolution extrapolates from natural selection( which is wholly empirically proven), not the other way about.
As you say, many do not understand Darwin's work. Let alone Watson and Crick's.
I agree with my whole being that we should be honest about what we do and don't know.
Submit Comment
I agree that the current theory of evolution should not be taught as gospel. I still think it should be taught because it is important to teach students about the history of the theory, how the understanding of the theory has changed and how it lead up to our current understanding. You can do all of this while acknowledging what we do and don't know, and what is currently being disputed. I think the history of the research around a concept is just as important to teach as the concept itself, which is why I think the theory should be taught.
I disagree with OP's stance. Not only does OP not seem to understand that cutting edge science typically starts with scientists who went to school, but I also disagree that knowledge is wasted on a person if that person doesn't need it for their profession. Education is supposed to be about learning and encouraging thinking, not preparing people to go into a limited selection of jobs with a narrow mindset. Finally, I disagree with treating creationism with the same amount of legitimacy as evolution. This sort of false neutrality only feigns objectivity. It's a lazy way to appear professional and we see enough of that in the news.
I disagree with OP's stance. Not only does OP not seem to understand that cutting edge science typically starts with scientists who went to school, but I also disagree that knowledge is wasted on a person if that person doesn't need it for their profession. Education is supposed to be about learning and encouraging thinking, not preparing people to go into a limited selection of jobs with a narrow mindset. Finally, I disagree with treating creationism with the same amount of legitimacy as evolution. This sort of false neutrality only feigns objectivity. It's a lazy way to appear professional and we see enough of that in the news.
View all replies
No. Its an obviously stupid and riddiculous opinion, not just a controversial one.
Of course schools should teach evolution. Duh. Because science teaches evolution. Duh. And children shouldnt be ignorant. Duh.
School is not for making ignorant worker bees for the industry. Its for making whole people and thus needs to teach of all important areas of the world.
Thats btw also why school needs to teach about sex, so the kids know whats going on. They can decide themselves what they want to do with that knowledge. Instead of being subjected to the same development as everybody else without knowing what the heck is going on.
But as I know the internet, the next thing somebody will ask is to remove geography from the schedule because that upsets the flatearthers.
For Einstein was right, there just is no limit to stupidity.