Great post. Made me laugh and depressed at the same time though...

Just a quibble:

"I suspect if you allowed students to choose, they might, just perhaps, decide that calculus, grammatical rules, and the laws of physics aren’t things they happen to feel like learning..."

In school, children learn how language is encoded in a written form, and some idiosyncrasies about our written culture, but they acquire their grammatical rules well before they ever step into a classroom, and that process of acquisition largely lacks any overt instruction.

I think it also reflects how these many women think it's in their best interest to play it safe intellectually and socially; it reflects how hard it actually is for women to navigate social expectations, how unnatural it is.

 I was most impressed (good and bad) with the women who had the most declarative answers. 

I am curious about what their answer would be if the question was:  

Should Archaeology or Paleontology be taught in school?   

I kept waiting for one of them to say, "YES, because it is science!" 

Finally Miss New Mexico said it.

Whenever I hear the "two sides" argument, I ask people if they then agree that the theory of gravity has two sides.

If they also bring the Bible in to talk about a reason why they feel that evolution has "two sides", then I ask them if the Bible is a question with "two sides", asking if people should be taught other religions (and, to expand the "two sides" question, whether people ought to be taught that about no religion), and not only be focused on the Bible.

I actulaly interpreted the "choice" these women suggest should be left with the students as the choice of what to believe, not what to learn about. Most of them explciitly state that both evolution and come form of creationism should be taught, and that the student should be left to decide their beliefs. While I don't gree that creationism has a place in a science classroom,  the idea of leaving open-ended questions in classes when there is an actual lack of consensus among professionals within the field in question up to the students to consider is reasonable. These women's only faulty premise is that evolution is not an open-ended question, it's really quite settled.

But it's hard to reconcile that fact with the freedom of choice really in question in the evolution debate, which is freedom of religion.

Check out how USAToday reported this:

Miss USA contest evolves: 'Huge science geek' wins
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
Updated 2011-06-22

UPDATE: [Of the] 51 preliminary interviews with Miss USA contestants, the new Miss USA (Miss California Alyssa Campanella), Miss Massachusetts, Miss Vermont, Miss Washington and Miss New Mexico [were in favor of teaching evolution]. So, that's five in 51 clearly for teaching evolution while about 90% were opposed or called for teaching "both sides." Hat tip here to eagle-eyed F&R readers for catching this.

ORIGINAL POST:
Score one for Charles Darwin. The newly crowned Miss USA, Alyssa Campanella, 21, of
Los Angeles, who calls herself "a huge science geek," says evolution should be taught in public schools. […]

T]he evolution answers would make Answers in Genesis -- the folks behind the
Creation Museum and the upcoming Noah's Ark theme park -- proud.

One after another of the contestants, like Miss Maryland, confused the evolution of
species with the origin of life (not the same) or said a variation of Miss Michigan's line that it's "silly" and "ignorant" not to know "both sides" including, evidently, religious views in public
schools.

Three were flat out opposed: Miss Kentucky, home state of the Creation Museum; Miss
Alaska who assures us "each of us was individually created by God for a purpose"; and Miss Alabama who doesn't believe in evolution. […] The eventual winner said, “I was taught evolution in high school. I do believe in it. I'm a huge science geek...I like to believe in the big bang theory and, you know, the evolution of humans throughout time.” […]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/06/miss-usa-california-campanella-science/1

Is there no understanding of the scientific method? Theory =/= hypothesis.

This whole "scientific definition of theory" thing annoys me! No, it's not that there's a problem with the colloquial definition of "theory." I come up with scientific theories all the time, and they're just random thoughts I have, and maybe they get disproven and maybe they don't. Very often, I disprove my own theories. The problem is not that scientists define "theory" in a different way, because we don't. The problem is that once a theory has been tested a billion times and still held up, we haven't thought of a good word to use for the idea that we're pretty sure is 99.9% solid. So it's our own darn fault!

Really, the only acceptable answer is: "Yes, evolution should be taught in school because it is a scientific fact. Teaching it in schools will help improve the scientific literacy of Americans." Science isn't philosophy. It's not a belief, religious or otherwise. It is not debated among scientists. It does not vary among cultures or ethnicities. It's not just important historically. It is not "just a theory." Science does not have two sides. Science is one sided. IT IS FACT. The facts may be altered as we learn more, as in our classification of Pluto as no longer a planet, but it is our known truth. The only known, proven, factual truth about why we exist. SCIENCE IS NOT OPTIONAL. You don't decide to believe in gravity. You don't get to form your own opinion of it. That idea is ridiculous. These pandering shills make me want to weep for America. These supposed "role models" are selling out to the lowest common politically correct denominator for a shiny crown. What do you want to bet at least half of the ladies who said "Evolution should be taught in school- but" are scientifically literate enough to know it is a fact? Cowards.

This argument consistently confuses me. Do creationists believe in genetics? Do they believe in recessive and dominant genes? Do they believe genes are inherited? Because that's kind of all there is to evolution, and it's not that hard to understand. How do they think we breed specific types of dogs?

Also that math video was hilarious.

Forget one's perspective on evolutionary biology; those answers are total nonsense.  There is no content there at all.

I like the parts where they talk about "creationatism" and how evolution is "kind of a tattoo subject"

I appreciated Miss Minnesota's answer, pointing out that even if you are religious, you can still believe in evolution.

I sometimes wonder how much of this is due to the way we teach and communicate science: emphasizing evolution as an important part of how we understand all biology might help get rid of the idea that it's just one of many competing viewpoints.  (I think it's a general trend that science classes are taught in a way that de-emphasizes the many connections between different areas and topics, even within a discipline...too many people come away with the idea of science as a series of disparate facts, rather than a framework of highly connected ideas and methods.)  But by saying that, I don't want to neglect the effect of people who are willing to yell, constantly, at the top of their lungs that they should never have to deal with anything that isn't 100% in alignment with their religious beliefs.

Evolution is not, and will never be, observational science. It is only an interpretation of evidence (the same evidence that creation follows).  Both sides require faith in something unseen. One believes that random mutations caused life to be as it is today, while the other believes that God created everything with purpose.  
Equating mathematics to evolution is a poor choice. Math is measurable and humans work with it everyday. Evolution is man's rejection of our Creator and acceptance of views that are impossible.

I'm not very surprised about the answers many of the contestants gave, but I am surprised about the comments here.  Take another look at what Alaska, Kentucky and New Hampshire said.  All three mentioned that teaching evolutionary theory as fact can be in some ways disregarding the cultural traditions of a diverse student body.  For students of indigenous/Native American decent, for example, whose cultures may have their own particular creation stories, hearing in school that "THIS is the TRUTH" is very much the colonization of knowledge.  

The OP notes the slippery slope we can go down if we "let students choose what they want to learn."  But what really needs to come into our public schools is the cultural contextualization of scientific knowledge.  What was "scientific fact" 100 years ago is rubbish today. We need to admit that, and acknowledge the many scientific errors that have been made throughout history.  Or the way "science" has been used to justify the superiority of the West and consequent oppression, imperialism, genocide, etc.

Is it not true that for a truly inclusive and dynamic education system, we need to acknowledge that knowledge is subjective, and that there diverse ways of knowing and understanding our world? 

It gave me a few chuckles, but did anyone notice the stereotyping in the parody video?

i am fangirling miss vermont so hard right now. she referenced the evolution of resistant bacteria. hearts in my eyes.

I'm amazed by the number of contestants who stated that "all theories"
about how the world came to be the way it is should be taught. Even if
we decide that science has the same status as a religious creation story
(which I do not accept), there are hundreds of indigenous nations with
their own creation stories on the North American continent alone, not to
mention all the other cultures of the world. If "all theories" were to
be taught there would be no time in school to teach anything else.

Of course, if what they mean by "all theories" is "the one in the Bible
and evolution" (as some of the other contestants state), that's a
different matter. An interesting follow-up question at that point would
be "why do you think the Biblical creation story is so much more worthy
of notice than all the other ones out there?"

I honestly think so much of this debate could be avoided if school curriculums addressed religion in any meaningful way.

Regardless of your belief system, religion has had a huge cultural significance on human history and culture. I don't think they should teach creationism in the science class... but it should definitely be part of a required comparative religions course that covers multiple creation beliefs.

I think if we could move toward the idea that there is room for religious belief in education... but not one single belief, and that it isn't part of the science class... we could get a lot farther on this debate. You don't need to teach the solipsist controversy in science class either - there are all sorts of philosophical assumptions that are part of what make science science. Give the other side its place where it belongs - as part of social studies.

I´m sorry. I read and read post about this "debate" in the US but i still don´t get it. I mean, REALLY, there´s REALLY so many people who thinks evolution should not be teached in schools? Things like this makes me proud about been born in a third world country ;) (Argentina, if you ask)

What's fascinating sociologically is not whether evolution should be taught in schools.  As Gwen points out, it's the idea that "individual choice" is presumably what judges are looking for (given how many times a version of that response was given) and NOT "I'm for it" or "I'm against it."  This fits in nicely with Messner's work on soft essentialism as a gender ideology that articulate choice as the post-feminist fruit for girls and women in society, yet relies on heavily essentialist notions of biology.  So to me, this rhetoric of individual choice outside the circle of gendered discourse but inside the circle of a competition about performed femininity is a marker that suggests a girl channeling Messner's notions of an anti-categorical femininity but an essentialist sex would do quite well in a pageant indeed. 

If anything, this shows that there ARE two sides!!! Almost EVERY girl agreed. They represent almost the whole country!!! Of course, tho, you think one theory can make MILLIONS of people wrong. How does that make any sense?

Just another article to get the loony liberals spun up.  But I wonder why the liberals don't get mad that the video attached to this article makes fun of women?  I mean if it had made fun of gay people, Muslims, or an ethnic group they would be up in arms right?   

(Sorry this is rather long - but the refutation must be presented in full. I urge people to read it to understand how the fish to man story of evolution maligns science and does not in the least qualify as science.)

The fish to man story of evolution (the belief that populations of tiny fish evolved, over generations, eventually into people (via amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then ape-like creatures) is not science. Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other origins belief (of the universe, of life, of biological diversity of life). Why? Because none of them are observable or testable/verifiable. Lacking both, one can only believe in them – that’s not science. (I must point out, however, that given the overwhelming evidence of design in nature, verified every time another scientist or engineer tries to mimic said designs (and ironically falls short), it’s logically undeniable we were designed and created – the only faith part is God).
 
 
Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting evolution. No, we observe dead bones and fossils. Then they attach a BELIEF to said bones on what they believe it means and what they want it to mean to everyone else (e.g., “we BELIEVE this evolved into that”). The beliefs themselves remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable! Using their logic, ANY belief anyone attaches to those bones suddenly becomes a factual observation of said belief, which of course is utterly false and exposes how it maligns science to pretend just coming up with a belief about dead bones and fossils suddenly means that belief is true and science.
 
 
Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions as proof it’s science. So using that new definition of science (that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies said belief as science), by this new definition of science, Creation by God qualifies as science as it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists will then return to the actual truth of what science really is and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo. They seem to remember with clarity what science actually is when it comes back to the discussion of the truth of God creating everything.
 
 
Evolutionists will claim DNA similarity means animal-x evolved over generations into animal-y. No, this already starts with the pre-supposition that the fish to man storybook evolution is true – circular reasoning. If there was a designer, there would also be DNA similarities. But we can’t turn around and say “DNA similarity prove there’s a designer.” Exact same problem IF you are trying to claim such things qualify as science. Again, a BELIEF about what you want DNA similarity to mean you does not eliminate the need to have an observation or repeatable test case showing that belief actually happening: animals that are clearly not [finches] evolving over generations eventually into [finches]. (Pick any animal here). Then we can look at DNA similarity and for once we’d have an observation and/or test case showing that belief actually happened.
 
Some will say homology is “evidence” of the fish to man storybook evolution. Again, it’s just a belief about what homology means to them. A designer would also use similar parts in different animals. But it would be just as false to say homology is “scientific evidence” of God designing the biological diversity we see in life. Evolutionists would then go back to the correct definition of science and say “Show an observation or test case of God creating/designing life.” Bingo.
 
 
The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of [finches] only ever produce, over generations, more [finches] even if they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [finches] (but still [finches]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact, is science and FALSIFIES the fish to man story of evolution: that populations of animals that are clearly not [finches] will eventually evolve, over generations, animals that are [finches]! (Same holds true no matter what animal you replace with [finches] in the previous sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all of those things and most everything else evolved from populations of tiny fish and worse over generations once upon a time. They do not have a single observation or repeatable test case of populations of animals that are clearly not [finches] evolving over generations eventually into [finches].
 
 
But in the end, although NO origin scientific claim really can qualify as science (and it’s either ignorance or outright dishonesty to claim it is), it’s logically undeniable we were created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if it’s a building that’s so advanced in its design it can adapt to its environment and even produce more buildings just like itself over time – what an ingenious design indeed! Not to mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer - just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in near miraculous ways. DNA and the mechanisms that decode that information and act on it to build organic machines that have BRAINS(!) makes our most advanced computers look like lego building blocks! Scientists and engineers continue to testify to the abundance of design in nature as they continue to attempt mimicking the amazing designs in nature (and ironically in spite of their brilliance fall far short). It’s logically undeniable we were created. The only faith part is who was the designer? My faith is in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Whatever your faith is, that doesn’t make it science either, for the record. But nonetheless it’s logically undeniable we were created.
 
 
Fish to man evolutionists cannot refute any of the above – they can only offer personal attacks which proves they know it’s true: the fish to man story of evolution is just science fiction masquerading as science, maligning actual science. That they are teaching a version of science of making up a belief that no one can observe happening, no one can show happening in repeatable test cases, but they let you call it science anyway, which continues to maligns actual science.
 
 
Some might say “Evolution driven by random mutations and natural selection is scientific fact” but the fact is they cannot show “random mutations and natural selection” leading to populations of animals that are clearly not [finches] evolving over generations eventually into [finches] proves yet again it’s not science: it’s just a belief attached to what they want natural selection and mutations to MEAN to them (and more importantly what they want that belief to mean to everyone else). They cannot back up that belief by showing observations or repeatable test cases of “random mutations and natural selections” doing what they claim it does.
 
 
“Well it takes too long [insert personal attack here]” – unwittingly admitting that what they believe CANNOT be shown in observations and or repeatable test cases, hence cannot be called science.
 
 
Free thinkers realize the fish to man story of evolution maligns science and is the biggest con of our age: deceiving people into thinking it’s actual science. And if you don’t pledge your faith to it, you are likely fired and blacklisted. Again, the fish to man story of evolution actually maligns science – and it’s supporters need hatred to defend it. Actual science merely offers up observations and/or repeatable test cases to show their scientific theories actually happening. The fish to man story of evolution has no such observations and no such repeatable test cases, so they must resort to personal attacks as their “evidence” – again, maligning science.
 

It seems strange to me that no one should question what they are being taught in school. Isn't the whole point of learning to find truth? In our postmodern day of "no absolutes", I find it interesting that we are expected to believe whatever scientists tell us. I for one believe in the absolute truth of God, who created all science.

"I think that knowledge is power" Miss New York, channeling Foucault there.

While your point about choice is well taken, there is a difference between scientific law (i.e. calculus, gravity) and theory (evolution). The point of attack for creationists on evolution is precisely that it's a theory and thus not empirically demonstrable.
What I see as more problematic here is that a  theory that is based on the observable and a theory derived from belief and morality are treated as equal.

What happens a person is wrong in their view on the afterlife?