> > Let me hit the same conclusions from a different perspective. Too many treat education as telling kids *what* to think instead of *how* to think.
>
> So would you apply this priciple to other things as well? Should we also not teach our students that there is this force called gravity and that's why we all stay on the ground instead of floating around? Should we not teach them why ice melts if you leave it in the sun? Why it's sometimes raining and sometimes snowing and sometimes nothing at all? If so, then I guess that's that; I can't even begin to agree with you. If not, why the distinction?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying, "Don't commit to the truth of anything when you teach kids, because they have to decide for themselves!" What I'm saying is, teach *how* kids can think logically and come to logical conclusions. Then, when you teach the findings of science, teach *how* people came to the conclusions they came to. The result is, if they *want* to decide themselves if something is true or not, they are *capable* of doing so.

This does two things. One, it enables kids to trust the findings of others and build upon them if they so choose, or, two, it allows them to go back over scientific findings of their own choice and reevaluate them as they please. Both of these are great things. The first is unquestionably beneficial to us all; the second could be and is at worst a fantastic learning experience for the student.

So, to answer your question, what's different between evolution and water freezing? Come on, do you really have to ask that question? Kids learn that ice melts into water on their own, before they even get to a level of intellectual maturity where they can learn the scientific method as a theoretical construct on its own, or evolution as a scientific theory. They don't need to be taught *how* we know ice melts, because it's a phenomenon freely observable to virtually anybody. That said, there is NOTHING wrong with using "ice melting" as an example of how the scientific method may be applied: set up an experiment to "prove" this phenomenon really happens. It's a great way to teach kids how to back up the assumptions they make from observing the world around them with something more objectively grounded. A "trivial" exercise or two like this can help illustrates how scientists arrived at any number of other conclusions which may not be so self-evident from normal observation.

Here's another difference. Whether you accept the theory of evolution as truth or not, the theory itself is a whole lot more complex, less observable, and laden with exceptions and anomalies that science has not yet addressed (but generally beliefs it will in time). This is not the case with "ice melts" in the sun. We're all pretty much good on that one; story over. How is it bad to teach kids in school the tools they need to shore up (or debunk) the foundation of evolution, or build upon it, as they please? Humanity could potentially benefit from either. We're probably not going to benefit too much from, "Hey kids, don't take MY word for it that ice melts. Ok, you've graduated!" I'm not proposing that anyway, with respect to either theory, as I have hopefully cleared up above, but this is another answer to your question about why we should treat the two theories differently in schools.

--

I want to stress that what I shall say now has nothing to do with my philosophy of education outlined above. I truly do wish that our schools taught kids how to think for themselves in the manner I've described.

But I have to say, there is no way I can get behind evolution being as grounded as melting ice. To me, it seems the whole theory is like the leaning Tower of Pisa. On the top floor, gosh, it sure fits beautifully with the floor below! Nice even lines, perfect compatibility. And with the floor below that, well, it fits together this way, with these beams and girders, and that floor is all nice and pat with the one below it, too.

But the further up you go, the more and more of a stretch it is to claim you're on that straight vertical line from the ground. We don't like having to stretch like that. We don't like having to suppose, "Gosh, this entire tectonic plate must have turned upside down!" (an exaggeration, calm the hell down) and trying to figure out how to support that. But we do it. We stretch and strive and create more anomalies for ourselves, because at any given step along the way, it makes WAY more sense to zero in on our deviation from the vertical as the "anomaly" to try to account for, rather than the throw the whole tower away, which does, after all, fit together so nice. I mean, Occam's Razor and everything, how could such an obviously clean, consistent, smoooth little tower be all wrong?