But do we need to be taught Evolution or ID as far as I can tell one can study the basics of biology what we see now with no concern for any evolutionary inclusion we did that in the Christian School I attended.
the basics of biology. It's what causes everything from species to the parts of cells to the sequences of proteins to make sense. Studying biology without understanding evolution is like studying physics without understanding energy conservation or calculus. Yes, you can plug in some equations and learn some facts, but there's no scheme to tie it together.
For example, you may have learned that some organisms have nuclei, and some don't. In order to answer the following questions, you need a basic grasp of evolution:
1) Why do all mammals have four legs (or, in the case of bats, two legs and two wings that have leglike skeletons), and all insects have six legs? This doesn't seem like a "college-level" question; it's straightforward if you've studied evolution at all.
2) Why do we classify species in terms of genus, phylum, kingdom, domain, and so on? Before Darwin, it was based on how they looked, pretty much, but now it's based on how they evolved. If you learn about animals and plants without understanding evolution, it'll end up being pure memorization, as opposed to a real grasp of why they're classified the way they are.
3) Why are RNA and DNA so chemically similar to each other?
4) Why does the sequences of human proteins resemble those of chimp proteins more than they resemble those of fish proteins? Why do the degrees of similarity in sequence resemble the inferred trees of descent we get from the fossil record?
If you study biology without evolution, it's going to be mostly just memorization.
And at least medical doctor I go to even admitted Evolution is not necessary for the study of medicine at the levels your talking about. Bateria and viruses change and adapt to treatment is about all he has to be concerned with what most would call microevolution.
evolution. The term "microevolution" is generally not used by scientists; it's an ID ruse intended to convince people that somehow changes between species are fundamentally different than changes within species. This is simply wrong. It's possible to observe speciation (macroevolution) in a lab. The ID response is that you "never see someone evolving a new leg in the lab;" never mind that you can mutate a fly in such a way as to give it two extra wings.
A doctor who doesn't understand that "microevolution" is no different from "macroevolution" does not understand evolution. The rapid sequence change of HIV is the same process that leads to the development of new viruses - which should prove an awful surprise to him.
If its controversial in schools just don't teach it if parents don't like it its America the schools should stay neutral on any matter that may offend at least a reasonable number of parents if they are publically funded.
Some people find any number of things offensive. Quite a few parents are offended by the fact that non-Christian religions are mentioned and discussed in History classes, not to proselytize, but simply to explain the impact they had. Should we censor those segments of our history textbooks?
Strict mass rule is not a good idea when it comes to public education; it has a poor track record of respecting divisions between church and state, and the rights of minorities. Simply put, allowing any proportion of the population - even 63%! - to impose a particular religious view in a public science classroom is unacceptable. The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the existence of any god or gods.
I know a local white nationalist family that wants their child not taught about Black History Month since they find it offensive and to leave such persons in a general review course of history when such persons warrant it, as an example they stated: If a black man did something that warrants inclusion due to historical or culteural achievement in our childs fifth grade class then include him, but why have a whole month dedicated to one race?
Why have eleven months devoted to white people? "Historical or cultural achievement" has always been defined from a white, western perspective.
If you insist on the traditional standard there, you'll automatically exclude quite a few students, who will never get positive role models to counter the dubious view of black people perpetuated throughout the media.
The same here there is no reason to include evolution unless one reaches college and is studying to be a palientologist or something specialized that must deal with it if its offensive to half the population exclude it in K-12.
Okay. What about my state, where it's offensive to less than half the population? Is the cutoff 50%? 60%? 25%? And it's not just paleontologists who use evolution. Geneticists like me use it. Molecular biologists use it. Even biochemists have to think about it if they plan on reconstituting an enzyme mixture using proteins from multiple species.
If course we libertarians hate the government even having free public schools in many cases so we think the system itself is not necessary but just making a case for just excluding this and ignoring the issue.
Private schools should be run on a Libertarian basis, and teach what they wish. Public schools, on the other hand, absolutely must not allow any particular religious group to filter the teaching of science through their lens.
(Incidentally, this includes atheism; an evolution class in high school should not
teach that evolution "disproves" or "is evidence against" the existence of any god or gods. It should be presented factually, not as religious philosophy.)