I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.
I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.
Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.
I guess you believe in human evolution. What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.
Do you think your students really believed it? I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description. I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.
I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator. Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes. Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion. I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID. All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion. I think the creationists can live with that. What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation. The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics. I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.
I think almost all the students believed it.
As for the eye, it is an organ that evolved just like all the other organs. There are simple eye spots on planaria that are simply sensitive to light. There are more complex eyes that "see" with limited depth perception. There are eyes that require something to move to be seen. So the idea that eyes would have to originate in their exact configuration in order to work is nonsense. It ignores the Simple Eye in arthropods (pigment pit), that is a single lens and a simple retina.
Then why isn't human evolution taught more widely today? Darwin wrote about it in his second book, but it is considered racist. Darwin's ideas also led to eugenics (fake science) and the Holocaust.
With the eye, it isn't just limited to human eyes. Animals have different eyes. For example, my dogs have night vision in low light. Other jungle animals and birds all have different eyes. With this wide variety of eyes, one can't just simply explain it as "an organ that evolved like all other organs." We can say the same for the ear as we have much different hearing for humans and animals. The complexity of the eye and ear is evidence for creation.
What did Darwin say about the eye and ear?
Yes, we can, in fact, say it is an organ that evolved like all the other organs. And small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on more readily.
A dog with better night vision would be a better predator. Therefore, it would eat better, be stronger, and attract more mates.
What I was looking for was what you explained of simple going to more complex. We had the finch beaks of the Galapalagos which I doubt Darwin drew. Honestly, I see that drawing everywhere, but do not know if Darwin actually was able to draw like that.
Anyway, you describe the small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on as those which receive it will better survive. Those which don't will likely die. I believe that. There is something else that you are leaving out. What do you think that is?
None of these animals, including humans, went from simple to complex when it came to their eyes and ears. They already had this vision or hearing. Otherwise, we would have those drawings.
Furthermore, we just had a Lucy and it takes two to tango. None of what happened afterward is explained.
