No, it is not necessary to understand evolution to comprehend the functioning of biological systems. In no way does it make any difference whatsoever to biology how the current organisms came into being in their present state. It is not "rote memorization" to teach the chemistry, anatomy, physiology, celular structure, etcetera *without* teaching evolution. It has no effect on the material outside of the evolution segment itself. Nor would the lack of the evolution segment in biology have substantial impacts on the knowledge gained about the scientific method, as the *rest* of the course still gives an excellent overview of how the systems were discovered and described.
There would be a solid case to be made for teaching evolution as a requirement in say, natural history, because it would not be possible to teach the class without it, but that is genuinely untrue of biology, there is no need for it there. The insistence that it be taught, to *everyone* in the face of a huge controversy, and over the objections of a substantial percentage of the populace seems rather... spiteful? cussed? mean-spirited?
Again, I'd have no problem with it *if* the course were elective or attendance optional. But forcing *every* child, regardless of the wishes of the parents to be taught this particular thing undermines the rights of the parents, infringes on the free exercise of religion, causes friction in the classroom which distracts from the actual *teaching*, and serves no particular purpose.
Actually, I'd be happiest with giving it to the states, yes, we'd probably wind up with a few "dumb" states, but that's fine.
no subject
There would be a solid case to be made for teaching evolution as a requirement in say, natural history, because it would not be possible to teach the class without it, but that is genuinely untrue of biology, there is no need for it there. The insistence that it be taught, to *everyone* in the face of a huge controversy, and over the objections of a substantial percentage of the populace seems rather... spiteful? cussed? mean-spirited?
Again, I'd have no problem with it *if* the course were elective or attendance optional. But forcing *every* child, regardless of the wishes of the parents to be taught this particular thing undermines the rights of the parents, infringes on the free exercise of religion, causes friction in the classroom which distracts from the actual *teaching*, and serves no particular purpose.
Actually, I'd be happiest with giving it to the states, yes, we'd probably wind up with a few "dumb" states, but that's fine.