Science Fact, or Science Myth? High School Education and Evolution

[yxboom]

Science Fact, or Science Myth? High School Education and Evolution

by Yog^sothoth (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=28)

“You’re just a stupid looking monkey without any hair.” Said the typically angry creationist.

“You’re just mud shaped like a dork.” Replied the equally angry evolutionist.

Following this pretend debate, the hurting starts, fists start flying, curses, expletives, explosions; all of this over a simple observation made in the nineteenth century. Evolution, since the publication of Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of the Species in 1859, man has been fighting man in a no-holds barred competition to bunk or debunk the theory which has come to signify our questioning the reliability and truthfulness of the story of our biblical creation. But more than that, our high schools have reached a critical point in trying to answer an ages old conundrum. A violent struggle persists, that began right before Darwin published his controversial book, beginning with the weaknesses of the concepts of evolution, coalescing into the bigger picture of the separation of church and state in our schools. In high school biology classes, evolution is taught to students “in-depth.” Much to the chagrin of parents trying to keep a religious morality in their children, school is teaching that the student should question everything he or she sees, while at the same time teaching that the theories of evolution are bound in stone. Legislation over the teaching of evolution has been in and out of the federal branches of government since the famous “Scopes Trial” of 1925. John Scopes was convicted of teaching the theory of evolution to students in a Dayton, Tennessee high school, where the teaching of evolution was forbidden. (Flatow)

“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.” Charles Darwin. (White 218)

But the Scopes trial was practically a hoax; John Scopes, a football coach and a substitute biology teacher, agreed to be arrested for teaching evolution so that the law, forbidding the teaching of evolution to grade school students, could be tested. Initially, he was convicted and fined $100, yet the ruling was overturned two years later when he was no longer employed by the state. Nearly forty years later, in the court case Epperson v Arkansas, the law which saw fit to fine Scopes, was ruled unconstitutional because to endorse the teaching of creation was to bring about a combination between church and state, which is strictly forbidden according to the Constitution. To stop there would be unfair to the near countless other laws which have proposed to do the very same thing Tennessee did. From Maine to California, anti-evolution laws are seeking to stop the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Separation of church and state is the only thing keeping us from throwing out the theory of evolution. Tempers flare over the evidences of evolution and a godless origin; yet, do teachers need to reformat how evolution is taught?

"Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known." Wife of the Bishop of Worcester after she heard about the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species (Darwin)

What is the theory of evolution? According to the glossary of the textbook, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, the theory of evolution is: “A Change in the genetic structure of a population." But this definition is merely an overview of the entire process. The explanation of this process is a work in progress, which is always being changed and upgraded or downgraded in scope and design, and comes in a wide variety of instructions. I will touch on two of them here, also described in the glossary and throughout several chapters of Introduction to Physical Anthropology,

“Punctuated Equilibrium: The concept that evolutionary change proceeds through long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid periods of change.”

And

“Macroevolution: Changes produced only after so many generations, such as the appearance of a new species.

What this means is that species change. Over time, in response to a change in the environment, a species, human or otherwise, will change, albeit slowly, from one species into another. The buildup of small changes in our genetic structure will eventually produce a new species, which is the concept of microevolution (small changes in form or function) into macroevolution (bringing about the appearance of a new species)(Jurmain 210-211). Yet, creationists charge that our bodies are irreducibly complex, meaning, that our there isn’t a single system in our body that could be reduced to de-evolved without it becoming completely useless (Behe). The problem with evolution is not within the theory; Darwin's basic theory is relatively easy to prove for it can be shown, through basic observation that species do change. The problem that creationists, lo nearly everyone within the scientific community, is within the mechanisms of how evolution works. The processes of how evolution work, vague and in process at best, are nearly impossible to validate because of the amount of time it takes for evolution to occur (Jurmain 194). In high schools, these theories are taught as fact (Answers in Genesis).

Evolution, at its base, is simple. Species change; this is an observation that Darwin made and can readily be agreed on by creationists and evolutionists alike. Where the problem lies is that the concepts of macro and microevolution are nearly untestable and improvable by scientific standards today (Introduction pg 194). Because of this, a plethora of theories and concepts abound in regard to this matter and this is why people feel that evolution should not be taught in high school. With so many theories, who can say which one is correct? Because it can take anywhere from several thousand to several million years for a change to occur, the chances of any sort of understanding or breakthrough's happening in our lifetime are extremely slim. Teaching scientific theory is a proud and necessary part of any child's education. But evolution is taught as fact (answers), as a proven theory with all of the necessary proofs and laws needed in the scientific community, but according to Dr. Kenneth Miller (Flatow), professor at Brown University, "All science should be taught skeptically…" And the monthly periodical Scientific American backs this quote, saying:

All scientific knowledge is provisional. Everything that science "knows," even the most mundane facts and long-established theories, is subject to reexamination as new information comes in. The latest ideas and data are the most provisional of all. Some recantations will be unavoidable. This is not a weakness of science; this is its glory. No endeavor rivals science in its incremental progress toward a more complete understanding of the observable world (Editors)"

which shows that it is not the aim of science to prove anything, merely explore, test, and explore the same concepts again and again and again, until nothing more can be questioned.

Creationists and like minded people have been arguing that it is illogical to teach something that is always changing, that high schools should teach only what is absolute in science. Evolution initially and still does come under fire because it holds in its simplicity the possibility of a Godless creation, or origin of mankind. For Christians, this is a sin for to doubt the word of God, is to doubt the existence of God himself. In a legal translation, the argument of state governments have been using a more literal interpretation and semantically charged argument of our countries Constitution and Declaration of Independence as proof of the nation’s stance on creation.

[…]the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,[…]

[…]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[…] (Jefferson)

State governments, since 1925, have been fighting to remove the teaching of human evolution from the academic curriculum, with threat of expulsion or monetary punishment if necessary. The most famous case of anti-evolution sentiment came from the Scopes Trial in the state of Tennessee in 1925. This trial gained notoriety from it being the first to test a law which specifically prohibited the teaching of anything. In the “trial of the century” Scopes was fined $100 for not adhering to Tennessee law regarding the teaching of evolution (Chebium). This law was not repealed until 1968, and was declared “unconstitutional” only on the grounds of our rights to free speech and our nation’s quest for the separation of church and state. Epperson v Arkansas, a case disputing the unlawful practice of banning evolution teaching in Arkansas Public Schools, was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1968 and the Supreme Court ruled that secular segregation was a defining part of the American system and that anything in reference to religion could not be taught. This decision repealed the Tennessee law as well. (Epperson) Edwards v Aguillard (1987), a court case from Louisiana law which stated evolution was not to be taught unless creation was taught as well, was brought to the supreme court and the courts upheld that our nations public school system should teach only secular subjects declaring the Louisiana law unconstitutional (Edwards).

And the battle rages on, Washington State, last year introduced Senate Bill 6500 in 2002, which states:

“(2) The Declaration of Independence declares the self-evident truth hat all men are created. The Declaration of Independence also declares that our rights are endowed by the Creator, and that governments are instituted among men to secure these God-given rights.

(3) The Preamble to the Washington state Constitution also acknowledges the Supreme Ruler of the Universe as the grantor of our liberties.

[…](7) All state legislators in the state of Washington swear an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Washington.

(8) The legislature finds that the teaching of the theory of evolution in the common schools of the state of Washington is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thereby unconstitutional and unlawful.

(9) All textbooks and curriculum that teach the theory of evolution shall be removed from the public schools forthwith and replaced with textbooks and curriculum that teach the self-evident truth of creation.”

And this bill still rests in committee. Texas’s own legislature introduced bill HB 911 which stated that all education in public schools must be secular in nature. (Delisi)

As an Anthropology major, I understand and appreciate the studies being done on human origins and the concepts of evolution. Does this belong in high schools? Simply put, yes, but what high school teachers teach is in need of restructuring and moderation. Irresponsible high school teachers distort theories and teach things that they do not understand fully. Although they teach to the best of their ability, the mere chaotic nature of the research of evolution prohibits up-to-date information from reaching students. Detailed evolution education belongs in college, where the student has more control over what they learn and how they learn it. I think evolution should be overviewed by high school teachers, but only as an example of scientific theory; one that is near impossible to prove due to the amazing amount of time (1.5 million years or more) it would take to prove such a thing as true. Another factor that gives evolution a bad name are the loud mouth braggarts and biased scientists who set out to rock the fundamentals of science and creation.

Bad science is a reality, and in the hands of the ignorant we’ll see the theory of evolution distorted and disembodied from respected scientific progress. By bad science, I mean scientists with agendas equivalent to the complete and utter destruction of the church and the theories of the creation. They seek this destruction merely because of personal feelings and biases; this is no way to be a scientist. It is said that a few bad apples will ruin the entire crop and that is true about everything, science especially. Thanks to several evolutionary hoaxes, (the most famous of which is Piltdown Man (Jurmain 240-241), scientists with egos, media coverage of said egoists, and ill-informed creationist propaganda, scientists are desperately fighting a losing battle. Evolution is proof of science at its best. As a working hypothesis, it is worked, rethought, tested, and argued about every minute of everyday. Evolution isn’t out to disprove the existence of God; it isn't out to prove that there is a God either, that belongs at church away from the goal of complete objectivity in scientists. It's taken us over 400 years to come to understand what we know now about the universe, to stop teaching evolution, rather, the scientific process, would be like cutting off a perfectly good leg. We need that leg; how did we come to have legs anyway?

Works Cited

Behe, Dr. Michael. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press, 1996.

Flatow, Ira, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Edward Larson, Dr. Kenneth Miller. ”Analysis: Scopes trial and the theory of evolution vs. creation."Transcript, Talk of the Nation. 7 July, 2000. Newspaper Source. 8 April, 2003.
http://80-web6.epnet.com.lsproxy.Austincc.edu

Chebium, Raju. 75 years after the Scopes trial pitted science against religion, the debate goes on." CNN.com: law center > news. 13 July, 2000. 9 April, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/13/scopes.monkey.trial/

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of the Species. New York: Random House, 1979

Delisi. Texas Senate Bill HB911 Legislative Session: 77(R) Texas, 2001.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/billhist/Hmatrix.d2w/report?LEG=77&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BIL LTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00911&SORT=Asc

Editors "SA Perspectives: In Science We Trust." Scientific American. December 2002. pg 14.

Epperson v Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97. FindLaw. 12 November 1968. 9
April, 2003.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=393&invol=97

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578. 19 June, 1987. 9 April, 2003.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=578

Ham, Ken. “Creation in public schools?” Answers in Genesis 14 December 2002. 15 April, 2003.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/1102lead.asp

Hochstatter. Senate Bill 6500, Washington State Senate. 57th Legislature 2002 Regular Session
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/Senate/6500-6524/6500_01182002.txt

Jefferson, Thomas, et al. Declaration of Independence. 1776.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html

Jurmain, Robert, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, Harry Nelson. Introduction to Physical Anthropology: Ninth Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003.

White, Michael. Darwin: A life in Science. New York: Plume, 1997.


300
Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials artictulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Vorkosigan]

Evolution, at its base, is simple. Species change; this is an observation that Darwin made and can readily be agreed on by creationists and evolutionists alike.

A little research might help. Darwin did not observe that species change; that observation had been made for more than 150 years prior to Darwin and had become an acute problem by the time Linneaus was putting together his ideas in the middle of the 18th century. Darwin is not credited with being the first to make the observation that organisms change through time. What he did was explain how they changed. Big difference.

Where the problem lies is that the concepts of macro and microevolution are nearly untestable and improvable by scientific standards today

Micro and macroevolution are the same thing and are observed both in the lab and in the field.

Yet, creationists charge that our bodies are irreducibly complex, meaning, that our there isn’t a single system in our body that could be reduced to de-evolved without it becoming completely useless (Behe).

This is not a "creationist" charge but an Intelligent Design charge, and most of them accept at least some evolutionary processes

The processes of how evolution work, vague and in process at best,

They are none of them vague, but are instead well defined and can be modeled mathematically. Ask any decent population geneticist or quantitative ecologist.

are nearly impossible to validate because of the amount of time it takes for evolution to occur (Jurmain 194).

Observations of evolution in the field are numerous. I believe there is a long list at Talk.origins. The theory, however, may also be validated through morphological and genetic evidence as well as observation of mechanisms for evolution. There is no need to observe the evolutionary history that lies between humans and bananas; the fact that we have common genes means we share a common ancestor.

In high schools, these theories are taught as fact (Answers in Genesis).

No, they are taught as theories. Change is a fact, the theory is a model that explains the relationship between facts in the world.

(Introduction pg 194). Because of this, a plethora of theories and concepts abound in regard to this matter and this is why people feel that evolution should not be taught in high school.

No, it is because they subscribe to wacko religious views that compel them to determine the nature of reality by fiat.

With so many theories, who can say which one is correct?

With a little study, you can easily find that a large number of widely-agreed upon and well-supported evolutionary mechanisms. Any decent textbook on evolution will describe them. The confusion appears to lie entirely with the writer here.

But evolution is taught as fact (answers), as a proven theory with all of the necessary proofs and laws needed in the scientific community, but according to Dr. Kenneth Miller (Flatow), professor at Brown University, "All science should be taught skeptically?amp;quot;

Evolution IS a fact; it is a fact that organisms change over time. It is also a theory that explains how such change occurs. Evolution is a proven theory, in the sense that abundant evidence supports it and it has survived all scientific assaults.

Evolution initially and still does come under fire because it holds in its simplicity the possibility of a Godless creation, or origin of mankind. For Christians, this is a sin for to doubt the word of God, is to doubt the existence of God himself.

Incorrect. For some Christians, evolution implies this. Others have no trouble living with evolution.

As an Anthropology major, I understand and appreciate the studies being done on human origins and the concepts of evolution. Does this belong in high schools? Simply put, yes, but what high school teachers teach is in need of restructuring and moderation. Irresponsible high school teachers distort theories and teach things that they do not understand fully.

...just as irresponsible article writers do...

Although they teach to the best of their ability, the mere chaotic nature of the research of evolution prohibits up-to-date information from reaching students.

What "chaotic nature?" The only chaos is in your understanding of the situation. Up-to-date information is available in the latest textbooks and periodicals, and many states mandate in-service training. Additionally, there are plenty of conscientious teachers who follow the debates and keep up with their profession.

teachers, but only as an example of scientific theory;

It IS taught as an example of a scientific theory.

one that is near impossible to prove due to the amazing amount of time (1.5 million years or more) it would take to prove such a thing as true.

LOL. The evidence for evolution does not rest on observations of its occurrence in the field; that is just icing on the cake. The evidence for evolution rests on the genetic and morphological relationships among organisms, and on the observation of the many processes by which evolution takes place happening under our very noses.

It might be good if you read stuff on science that was less biased than AIG or Ken <shudder> Ham. Why not start with one of the basic intro texts like Bowler's Evolution?

Vorkosigan

[Socrates]

Vork:It might be good if you read stuff on science that was less biased than AIG or Ken <shudder> Ham. Why not start with one of the basic intro texts like Bowler's Evolution?And of course a rabid atheist like Vork is the epitome of objectivity? :poke: The rest of Vork's post was "Populations change over time, therefore evolution from goo to you via the zoo is a fact." He should really stick to teaching English.

[Yog^sothoth]

Wow, this was totally not the response i expected. i'll respond more when i get back with a keyboard that works correctly.

One of the absolute joys of the electronic medium is that one can present points in a different way than one would in real life. Another fascinating thing about the electronic medium is the frothing with anger approach that people seem to take.

Vork, the great thing about this paper is that it is from the perspective of me as a child coming out of high school. Why do i charge that Evolution is taught as fact? Because it is.

I asked my friends, their friends, customers at work and general consensus was that evolution was totally proven.

Of which it is not

[Vorkosigan]

Vork, the great thing about this paper is that it is from the perspective of me as a child coming out of high school. Why do i charge that Evolution is taught as fact? Because it is.

Evolution IS a fact. It is a fact that organisms change through time. Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains why that fact exists. The modern updates to Darwin's theory are widely accepted as being very close to the reality of the issue -- a fact. Gravity is a theory too.....do you think that it should not be taught as the reality it is?

I did not mean to be so hard on you (I didn't realize your youth), but when you post stuff for public consumption it is a good idea to read some basic background stuff. That is why I recommend Bowler, or any of the basic works on evolutionary theory. And run your stuff past someone else. Every published author does; even Hemmingway had an editor, I always tell my writing students here. it's a sad fact of life that nobody can edit their own stuff.

It is an excellent effort for someone just out of high school. You should be proud.

And of course a rabid atheist like Vork is the epitome of objectivity

I did not recommend my own work, but Bowler's. And his is widely recognized as a standard intro work to the history of evolution as an idea.

Vorkosigan

[Yog^sothoth]

well vork. i never said evolution was wrong. I happen to believe in it to an extent. But we are arguing about different things. Evolution happens, species change. Do they change into other species? I would say no, they simply meet changing ecological conditions. Does that constitute a new species? I would say no, but you might say yes. The beauty of anthropology, ahhh yes.

The goo to you theory.....which is impossible to prove with basic scientific testing (as it would take millions if not billions of years to show) is what I am talking about. What are you talking about?

And thank you for proving my point by the way (though i no doubt beleive you have proven me wrong).

Nick

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106017#post106017)
Vorkosigan:

Yog: Vork, the great thing about this paper is that it is from the perspective of me as a child coming out of high school. Why do i charge that Evolution is taught as fact? Because it is.

Evolution IS a fact. It is a fact that organisms change through time.

OK, but I can't think of anyone who disputes that organisms (or really, populations) change over time. The dispute is whether evolution or creation is the best answer for why there is such complexity of life, or why life even exists (chemical evolution). This is an example of the bait'n'switch or equivocation in so much of the evolutionary propaganda dished out to the public.

Vork: Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains why that fact exists.

Yes, and creationists also believe that mutations and natural selection change populations over time.

Sometimes the populations become reproductively isolated, especially if geographic isolation happened first, producing a new biological species. So I have to agree with Vork and disagree with Yog that new species have arisen. However, this has happened very quickly, more than most evolutionists realize, and is a prediction of the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model -- see Speedy species surprise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.asp).

So why not argue against the real issue. None of the usual "proofs" of evolution, e.g. breeds of dogs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_25june2001.asp), peppered moths (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp) (even ignoring the staged pix), Darwin's finches (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1332.asp), blind fish in caves (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp), wingless beetles on windswept islands (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp) demonstrate that NEW information arises in the way needed for evolution from zoo to you via the zoo.

Vork: The modern updates to Darwin's theory are widely accepted as being very close to the reality of the issue -- a fact. Gravity is a theory too.....do you think that it should not be taught as the reality it is?

Actually AiG recommends against saying "evolution is just a theory" as well -- see Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp).

Vork: I did not mean to be so hard on you (I didn't realize your youth), but when you post stuff for public consumption it is a good idea to read some basic background stuff. That is why I recommend Bowler, or any of the basic works on evolutionary theory.

Not that the recommendations of a fanatically atheistic English teacher mean much, even if in this case it wasn't so bad. I would also recommend some introductory creationist works as well, and even the above URLs would be helpful.

And run your stuff past someone else. Every published author does; even Hemmingway had an editor, I always tell my writing students here. it's a sad fact of life that nobody can edit their own stuff.

That is excellent advice.

V:It is an excellent effort for someone just out of high school. You should be proud.

:thumb: Yeah, can't be to bad if it's critiqued from two opposite directions :brow:

Soc: And of course a rabid atheist like Vork is the epitome of objectivity.

Vork: I did not recommend my own work, but Bowler's. And his is widely recognized as a standard intro work to the history of evolution as an idea.

Yes, that's not bad, I agree.

[Vorkosigan]

Socrates: So I have to agree with Vork....

So it is true what they say: live long enough, you'll see everything. :)

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 11:03 AM
Vorkosigan:

Socrates: So I have to agree with Vork....

So it is true what they say: live long enough, you'll see everything. :)

Socrates also agrees that evolution by natural selection produces new species.

Now if AiG only had a consistent definition of measuring the information in a genome....

[Yog^sothoth]

Evolution IS a fact. It is a fact that organisms change through time. Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains why that fact exists. The modern updates to Darwin's theory are widely accepted as being very close to the reality of the issue -- a fact. Gravity is a theory too.....do you think that it should not be taught as the reality it is?


Read what you just said and then read what you said before. It's two different things. I said exactly what you just said. You seem to be hooked on the totality of evolution being a FACT. and it is not. We know that species change over time, it is a simple observation which we can see with our eyes looking back through the generations of pictures we have. The point of contention which is taught in High Schools are the general theories of micro and macro evolutions which state we will change into a new species over time through many different changes. Basically, what kids are taught, and the point of major contention is that teachers don't really know what they are teaching and pretty much assume that evolution is a law of science.

Some parts of it are, some parts of it are not. The facts that it happens are proven (IMO) but HOW is not.

I hope that clarifys things. Now onto this chuckle.


I did not mean to be so hard on you (I didn't realize your youth), but when you post stuff for public consumption it is a good idea to read some basic background stuff. That is why I recommend Bowler, or any of the basic works on evolutionary theory. And run your stuff past someone else. Every published author does; even Hemmingway had an editor, I always tell my writing students here. it's a sad fact of life that nobody can edit their own stuff.


You doof! I'm not out of High School! I'm 24. I did enough research on the subject of the paper. The point of the paper is not evolution. It's how evolution is taught in schools and how people disagree or agree with it. It's about how States are trying to toss evolution because of it's problems.

It's not ABOUT EVOLUTION and how wrong or ri ght it is. That is not an aim. I merely took the most basic elementary facts as I know them, and my college text books explain them, and presented an overview. 5 chapters condensed to a paragraph. For an english teacher you should read the whole paper before going postal.

Also, i'm not really interested in evolution that much to go out and read more on it. I've had my fill and on both sides th ere are too many idiots with which to deal with. Anthropology is for me, ebut not biology or evolutionary anthropology.

Have fun kid. What, you're like 12? :rofl:

context! I love it!

[Vorkosigan]

Read what you just said and then read what you said before. It's two different things. I said exactly what you just said. You seem to be hooked on the totality of evolution being a FACT. and it is not.

You seem not to understand basic issues. The word "evolution" refers to TWO different things, a source of great confusion. First, it refers to the FACT that organisms change over time. The word has been used in that meaning since at least 1826 (the earliest reference I know of, see Desmond's The Politics of Evolution.) The other meaning is the model pioneered by Darwin that explains how such changes occur. I regard both of these as facts, meaning I believe that they comport pretty well with reality.

The point of contention which is taught in High Schools are the general theories of micro and macro evolutions which state we will change into a new species over time through many different changes. Basically, what kids are taught, and the point of major contention is that teachers don't really know what they are teaching and pretty much assume that evolution is a law of science.

This paragraph is rife with sloppy thinking. First, there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution; macro evolution is micro evolution over time. If you want to claim that teachers don't know what they are teaching, you'll have to provide some evidence for this claim. What do mean by "law of science."

Some parts of it are, some parts of it are not. The facts that it happens are proven (IMO) but HOW is not.

Which of the many mechanisms for evolution do you regard as unproven? All of the ones in your basic evolution textbook have been directly observed.

You doof! I'm not out of High School! I'm 24.

I am supposed to know this how?

I did enough research on the subject of the paper.

Clearly not!

The point of the paper is not evolution. It's how evolution is taught in schools

..but you didn't research this at all. No data was presented, just assertions.

and how people disagree or agree with it. It's about how States are trying to toss evolution because of it's problems.

No, a group of fundamentalist Christians is trying to get evolution tossed because they don't like its theological implications. It has nothing to do with "problems" in the theory because there aren't any serious ones (though there are plenty of interesting puzzles to solve). That's why it is so widely accepted.

That's what I mean when I say you don't really have a good handle on the social side of the problem below....

For an english teacher you should read the whole paper before going postal.

LOL. Who went postal? Seems like you're a mite sensitive. You seem to able to lift news from contexts properly, but the scientific and social side seems lost on you.

Have fun kid. What, you're like 12?

No, I'm at the age where saying "nyah, nyah" doesn't raise a giggle. Apparently you have not yet reached that age.

Vorkosigan

[Yog^sothoth]

So, our little google here has come down to this.

you didn't do any research

yes i did, did you read the paper man!

No, you didn't.

did too

did not

did too

did not!

I didn't write this for a professional journal. I didn't write this for the audience which you belong too (or socrates, or any of the other uber evolutionist combatants here). I wrote this for what could only be called the public which doesn't have time to bother this sort of thing. Evolution doesn't need to be in this paper because this paper is not about the facts or figures of evolution. I don't care if any of your beliefs in evolution are in contest here, that is not the point.

What I said about evolution can be summed up in 3 sentences

Evolution is in contention because of HOW it works.
Species DO change over time
Microevolutionary changes can lead to a MacroEvolution because micro are small changes leading into a big one, a new species to emerge or a macro.

And that's it. It could be taken out but el profe thought this paper would be better suited to a wider audience if i provide a base explanation of evolution.

Everything you talk about matters about as much as you needing to know that there is a buddah statue standing on top of my stiky notepad given to my pharmacy by the makers of zetia.

You also don't need to know that Zetia, administered alone or in combination with an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin), is indicated as adjunctive therapy to diet for the reduction of elevated TOTAL-C, LDL-C, and Apo B in patients with primary (heterozygous familial and nonfamilial) hypercholesterolemia when diet alone is not enough.

The effects of ZETIA, either alone or in addition to a statin, on the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality have not been established.

I have about 13 sources I pulled information from. That was far more than I felt were needed in this matter. If you take the thesis of this paper


From Maine to California, anti-evolution laws are seeking to stop the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Separation of church and state is the only thing keeping us from throwing out the theory of evolution. Tempers flare over the evidences of evolution and a godless origin; yet, do teachers need to reformat how evolution is taught?


then you will see what I have just said is true. My end statements are based on a scientific observation I have been making over the past 2 years. This observation is this, Not a single group of evolutionists, creationists, intelligent designists or anyone else doubts that changes do happen.

Are you still with me?

But not a single person agrees 100% on the HOW of evolutionary change. Does DNA info mutate to meet ecological change? Why was Homo Erectus around for so long?

All of this data is widely widely open to interpretation. This semester alone I had two different professors for the same class (one was seriously injured and was replaced by another for a bit) and she totally changed our perception on evolution by teaching us different theories and interpretations on the same stuff we were learning. It's all in interpretation, your interpretation doesn't make you any more right than those who have their doctorates in Biology or evolutionary Biology or Archaeology, it's just a different interpretation based on the same incomplete and variably inprocessible data (because of the fact that they are fossils).

I guess i understand now why evolution is called a religion. There are so many variations of the same ideal that one could call them denominations.....

I feel that I should apologize to you. I've been playing with context a lot in this little discussion. I like to change my wording and sentence structure and style to see what happens. You've responded beautifully and I have added this to my notes. It annoys me that you are stuck on my presentation of evolution (because it is totally inconsequential), but it matters to me about as much as a non-smoker needs to smoke. My english professor passed this paper with an A and he was a dang picky fellow......which is of little consequence to you but could be provided as an example of how widely not only perception of data is concerned, but teaching styles and preferences as well.

And for the age, a little check of the profile usually does it....i've not hid anything about my life online for a long time, except for the little studies i conduct on context and the net.....

[Vorkosigan]

Evolution is in contention because of HOW it works.

That's a major point of disagreement. Evolution is contention because a group of wacko Christians has determined that it doesn't like it. Do you think there would be any ID movement or YEC movement if not for religion? Whatever contentions scientists have among themselves about evolution, it doesn't lead them to form groups dedicated to removing it from the public schools.

It annoys me that you are stuck on my presentation of evolution (because it is totally inconsequential), but it matters to me about as much as a non-smoker needs to smoke.

<shrug> You passed over everything else I said to focus on that. The "stuck" part is entirely in your head. But I am glad you found our conversation useful.

Vorkosigan

[Yog^sothoth]

:no:

[NEONBlack]

In this corner, we have Vorkosigan, the word-warrior of wisdom and wit who won't write what we want. Or perhaps it's more that he is overly concerned with an agenda as opposed to an educational philosophy?

In the opposite corner stands Yog^sothoth, our persistent presenter pointing out particularly parsimonious packets of print. Not only did he take on a subject of adamant contention, it's a subject ABOUT a subject of adamant contention! How's that for two in one! :help:

One quick aside:

"Texas’s own legislature introduced bill HB 911 which stated that all education in public schools must be secular in nature. (Delisi)"

Just one thing: where can I get information about that? I don't question it's validity, I'd just like to do research on it myself so that I can do something to combat it!!


Now that I've asked about that, I just have to say that I found the give and take both amusing and interesting ... until it came down to name-calling. And I say that in reference to one particular comment ...

"Evolution is (in) contention because a group of wacko Christians has determined that it doesn't like it. Do you think there would be any ID movement or YEC movement if not for religion? Whatever contentions scientists have among themselves about evolution, it doesn't lead them to form groups dedicated to removing it from the public schools."

And yet we have yet to see a group of "scientists" of the ilk as ol' Vorkie-boy would have us lump together forming groups dedicated to pushing forth any other type of theory quite so blindly and enthusiastically. Yet there are others, independent of religious affiliation, who have finally realized that the fanatically presented "evolution" just does not answer all the questions proposed by the development of both humanity and the rest of nature.

I find it quite interesting that it is pointed out again and again that Vorkodlack (if any of you ever played the V:tM computer game, you might know who I'm referring to) is an English teacher, professor, creator whatever. Last I checked, the English language itself was quite the evolving thing in and of itself. Certainly it is far from perfect, adapting as it were to the cultural norms and mores we force it into ... and yet I find no way of relating that to the human condition, in high school or otherwise.

I'm going to go out on a ledge here because I know SOMEONE is going to misinterpret my next quote just because of who said it ... but I'll take that chance.

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."

Suffice it to say, the source has to be considered: Adolf Hitler. Unlike many who have spoken out on the subject, I do not believe that the public schools have so fallen so far as to be even marginally comparable to the Hitler Youth. Having said that, I do find it quite interesting that there is such a definitely humanist stance taken by almost every set curriculum found in the vast majority of public schools.

Why is that?

I don't claim to know. I am not here to set forth conspiracy theories, historical possibilities, etc.; I am merely saying that "facts" are taught with no refutation, no skepticism, no outer possibilities when any thinking person who has the opportunity will immediately find the flaws. The text books "show" the evolution of man based on theoretical possibilities often based on a single bone or partial skeleton. Why is it we're so hard-pressed to find the bones of our assumed "ancestors" when we can fill the museums with dinosaurs who supposedly died so many millions of years earlier? (another "fact" I hold in contention but that's an entirely different debate)

[Yog^sothoth]

Hey NeonBlack, I wondered why you ruled then I saw you were from San Antonio. Nuff said.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/capitol.htm

this is the page you can go look bills up at. Also, at the end of the article up there you'll see that I tried to provide online documentation when I could. Living in the people's republic of Travis like I do it's no wonder why I hold the views I do.

But i'm from Ohio so go figure.

Thank you for your thoughts. I would post more on this but I just made something like 20 blog entries so my fingers are a little tired. Maybe i'll post more tomorrow.

thanks, Nick

[LGM]

One can only hope that the “gullible” and “ignorant” genes on display in these posts will someday be naturally selected out of our species… :wink:

I'm quite certain that if a few esteemed biologists would offer to breed with the staff of AIG, we could be rid of this problem in a generation or two... :idea:

In the meantime I would offer a suggestion that before you read another article by Ken Ham or spend money on a book by Michael Behe, go here:

www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

And read everything you can…for free...

You may be getting a late start, but remember…

It’s never too late to eat from the tree of knowledge.

[Jason Clark]

And if we're going to throw around web addresses try this one.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp


As for the supposed "facts" for evolution, they fit the creationist models just as well, perhaps better.

Rapid speciation fits well with the creationist belief that all land animal species are decended from the "kinds" that inhabited Noah's ark.

The masses of fossils buried in sediment fit the model of massive burial during an aquatic cataclysm.

Mount St Helens has even given us a modern demonstration of how a large number of layers of sediment can be laid down in an afternoon when the conditions are right.

Common genetic alphabet, lauded by evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins as proof of common ancestry, is no proof of evolutionary dogma. A common designer could provide an equally valid explanation for such a phenomena. Of course the CGA is a myth anyway. There are creatures, mainly single celled types, that have a differing alphabet to the norm. A list of these can be found here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=c.

It is fairly obvious to everyone that for an amoeba to become an antelope a large quantity of genetic information has to be generated. Before evolution can be declared a "fact" it is necessary for a naturalistic mechanism for the generation of new genetic information to be produced. If no such mechanism can be shown to exist then special creation is the default winner. :cheers:

[LGM]

Yesterday @ 10:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112263#post112263)
Jason Clark:

And if we're going to throw around web addresses try this one.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

...followed by more babbling about Noah's Ark, Richard Dawkins is satan, etc...


To save you the time of reading Timothy Wallace's very articulate defense of YEC, you can understand his summarized position in this quote:

"The bottom line, as I see it, is whether God’s Word is reliable and internally consistent (as it surely ought to be), and whether it is subject to disproof (or at least doubt) by so-called “facts” of science. I remain steadfastly convinced that there is (and will ever be) no true knowledge (i.e. science) that will ever contradict the Scriptures, and there is neither need nor advantage in accommodating the speculations of men by reinterpreting the Bible’s plain doctrines."

This is what I like to call "literary idolatry" - in its most extreme form. A form practiced with more and more articulate, convincing, organized absurdity by U.S. Christian evangelicals in recent years.

The sad thing is, Timmy's and Jason's entire reality is based on the bad assumption he makes in the above quote... that the Book of Genesis (or any book of the bible) is "God's word" and inerrant. When the fact is that the book of Genesis are the words of our anonymous, ancient, ignorant ancestors who were doing the best they could at the time to explain things they could not possibly understand back then.

No biologist "worships" the Origin of Species like this. No physicist "worships" Newton’s works like this. No cosmologist “worships” Galileo or Copernicus like this. They may marvel and respect their hard work and contributions, but when the scientific method exposes errors in their work or new data builds on top of it, they move on without the slightest concern for contradicting these “scriptures”, because this is how science works...

While Timmy or Jason may never budge with respect to being convinced of the “so-called facts of science”, I have no doubt that he will continue to take advantage of the improvements in food production, the new approaches in human health, and the explosion of new technologies in biotechnology, all made possible by evolutionary biological sciences.

Now the beauty of our country and our Constitution, is that it is a perfectly legal right for YEC Christians to form their own private schools or home schools and teach YEC, the “history” of the “flood” and the “fact” that Jesus is coming back and will miraculously regenerate the long dead, decomposed bodies of his faithful followers while the rest of us burn in hell. And while I may not agree with this, I am happy you have the freedom to believe it, say it, and even teach it to your children. That is what freedom of religion is all about.

The other beauty of our Constitution is that protects the rest of us from having this taught in public schools.

So their really is no controversy. The multitude of religious beliefs in this country are protected, and can be taught in churches, synagogues, mosques or pagan temples. In the same breath, the public schools and colleges teach secular, scientific knowledge that is constantly being expanded and enhanced through the scientific method.

[Jason Clark]

Oh my, the poor little evolutionist is trying to psychoanalyze me.
Of course he didn't read or understnad what I said, because I didn't mention satan at all.

His comments betray his complete and utter ignorance of "the facts of science" or anything else for that matter.

The benefits of science today rely only on the emperical sciences. Cause and effect, the observable repeatable experiment in real time. They do not rely on speculations about the origins of life and species from any point of view, creation or evolution. Of course linking unfounded speculations to emperical science is the only way that evolutionists can get a hearing for something with zero real evidence.

The comments earlier in this thread revolved around evolution meaning change. That's only suitable for the kind of people who call speed velocity. To an engineer or scientist velocity means speed in a direction, a vector rather than scaler quantity, likewise evolution is change in a direction. In this case from a simpler form, an amoeba for example, to a more complex, an antelope as another example. In order for such change to take place volumes of information have to be added to the amoeba's genome. No naturalistic process to produce this extra information has ever been demonstrated and even such an evolutionary big-wig as Richard Dawkins has no satisfactory answers to questions about it.

In the natural world we see abundant loss of information through natural and artificial selection or mutation. We see the same information reshuffled to produce different effects. We can even see viruses carry existing genetic information from one creature to another. We do not see any naturalistic gain in information of the genome.

As for the glorious constitution of the United States of America, not being an American I honestly couldn't give a flying toss about it.

I note the intellectual and chronological snobbery in his comments about " our anonymous, ancient, ignorant ancestors". Then I am reminded of the humility of Newton who said. "If I see further than those who came before me, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants". On average no human being is intrinsically smarter than our ancestors, we merely have access to greater quantities of information. No facts available have ever contridicted the Bible. Only the atheistic religious interpretations of those facts contridict the Bible and that's simply because without the "scientific fact" of evolution atheism is shown to be the intellectual and moral disaster that it really is.

A list of creationists who have made major contributions to science including the rationale of science can be found here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/270.asp

You'll notice that on no level does LakeGeorgeMan seek to actually engage any of my points, however good or bad they might be. Instead he resorts to childish 'nuh uhs' and 'arguments from outrage' as well as patronising arrogance implying that without the protection of the constitution Christians wouldn't be able to teach creation.

He's right that it would take a lot more than his say-so to convince me of evolution, but that's mainly because evolution is so ridiculous.

In engineering we have an in joke. It's called the perpetual motion machine. Every so often someone comes along and says that they can produce a heat-machine that operates at 100% efficiency. All the engineers laugh at the dummy.

What LakeGeorgeMan fails to realise is that evolution is the new joke and he's the dummy.

[NEONBlack]

No biologist "worships" the Origin of Species like this. No physicist "worships" Newton’s works like this. No cosmologist “worships” Galileo or Copernicus like this. They may marvel and respect their hard work and contributions, but when the scientific method exposes errors in their work or new data builds on top of it, they move on without the slightest concern for contradicting these “scriptures”, because this is how science works...

Is that so? Then why do we even know who Darwin is, especially considering that the "theory of evolution" as is taught with such cutting-edge science veers so sharply from his own original statements? Is it possible that, just like a religion, each "scripture" is open to interpretation? That, just like any religion (from Agnosticism to Zoroastrianism), you have "denominations" who stand for various possibilities and implied or inferred meanings?

This is what I like to call "literary idolatry" - in its most extreme form. A form practiced with more and more articulate, convincing, organized absurdity by U.S. Christian evangelicals in recent years.

U. S. Christian evangelicals? So it's not possible that anywhere else in the world there might be intellectual or scientific Christians who believe the same thing?

But that's just an aside. My main contention is still the fact that Science seems to simply side-step anything religious, that these people who have put forth hypotheses and possibilities are, after all, just men and so therefore are unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Yet there are whole mathematical and scientific processes named after them. If the basis of science is to disregard what has come before, what has been written before, why even believe it at all? Why not just start from scratch every time?

Because it is passed down. Because someone made an assertion that others decided to believe. Sometimes it worked out; sometimes it did not. For Christianity specifically, it breaks down to one simple theorem:

A+B=C

A = Belief in Jesus' Resurrection
B = The Grace of God
C = Salvation and eternity in heaven

That is an unprovable theory until we are either proven right or wrong--but that doesn't mean we don't believe it works.

Now then, something else ...

[Quote]Now the beauty of our country and our Constitution, is that it is a perfectly legal right for YEC Christians to form their own private schools or home schools and teach YEC, the “history” of the “flood” and the “fact” that Jesus is coming back and will miraculously regenerate the long dead, decomposed bodies of his faithful followers while the rest of us burn in hell. And while I may not agree with this, I am happy you have the freedom to believe it, say it, and even teach it to your children. That is what freedom of religion is all about.

The other beauty of our Constitution is that protects the rest of us from having this taught in public schools.[quote]

So shouldn't that also protect us from having a theory that requires even MORE faith than the religious creationism requires from being taught in our schools? If evolution is just a scientific possibility that can be challenged, why not offer differing viewpoints? If the Creation is so horridly far-fetched, why don't we teach about the Titans and Zeus? What about the giant turtle the world rests upon? After all, these are--in their own way--equally viable theories that could easily oppose evolution since it is a testable theory that cannot be absolutely proven.

But, then, why allow anything in opposition to the belief of evolution because it's already there. It's already in all the school-books. It's already taught to the teachers who in turn regurgitate the "facts" that have been imbedded into every facet of their teaching philosophy.

After all, they "believe" in it. The have their biology and chemistry and physics and mathematical bibl--I mean textbooks.

[LGM]

Today @ 03:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112954#post112954)
Jason Clark:

Oh my, the poor little evolutionist is trying to psychoanalyze me.
Of course he didn't read or understnad what I said, because I didn't mention satan at all.

I'm sorry Jason, I am not trying to psychoanalyze you (I don't have the time or the skills)...


His comments betray his complete and utter ignorance of the facts of science; or anything else for that matter.


I am obviously not ignorant in the ways of prompting a loving, Christian to insults and slander... :bawl:
Did not God create me? What would Jesus do when replying to my post? tsk...tsk...


The benefits of science today rely only on the emperical sciences.


oh, and I thought the benefits of science was being able to spell empirical... :dufus:


Cause and effect, the observable repeatable experiment in real time.


ooops, looks like Jason just erased quantum physics, paleontology and cosmology from the science department...er excuse me, uhhh, Mr. Hawking, would you mind producing an observable, repeatable black hole for us in real time? ...you see Jason can't find a reference to it anywhere in the bible...


They do not rely on speculations about the origins of life and species from any point of view, creation or evolution. Of course linking unfounded speculations to emperical science is the only way that evolutionists can get a hearing for something with zero real evidence.


How about this Jason...I'll admit that the "exact process" that created the "origin of life" on this planet is still a mystery to me and "most" scientists...can you do the same?

The comments earlier in this thread revolved around evolution meaning change..blah..blah...blah... No naturalistic process to produce this extra information has ever been demonstrated and even such an evolutionary big-wig as Richard Dawkins has no satisfactory answers to questions about it.


Are you a molecular biologist specializing in information theory? or are you just cutting and pasting from AIG's website?

Gene duplication, mutation and selection are all known to occur due to natural biochemical processes in a variety of organisms studied in the laboratory. Many gene families are known with members that encode proteins having related structure and related but distinct function. Each family can be explained by multiple gene duplications followed by random mutation and differentiation of the functions of the individual gene copies. Clearly the expansion from a single primordial gene to a large family of genes with distinct functions represents an increase in genetic information.


On average no human being is intrinsically smarter than our ancestors,

Actually, the increase in hominid brain size is well chronicled by paleoanthropoligists...ooops, I forgot, your brain is exactly the same size as Adam and Eve's...


...we merely have access to greater quantities of information.


yes we do..except those who can only use the information found in the book of Genesis... :argh:


No facts available have ever contridicted the Bible.


Well I must admit you got me there J-man, I realize what a fun prank it is for your God to create a global flood to the height of 5 miles, 4000 years ago, and then hide all the evidence so skeptics like me will burn in hell... such a kidder that God of yours...


Only the atheistic religious interpretations of those facts contridict the Bible and that's simply because without the &quot;scientific fact&quot; of evolution atheism is shown to be the intellectual and moral disaster that it really is.


I never said I was an atheist.

Let me ask you something J-ster, are Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or other enlightened Christians who accept evolution also "moral disasters" or just atheists?


A list of creationists who have made major contributions to science including the rationale of science can be found here.


I'm not doubting the "major" contributions of creationists. I'm sure there are many and I'm guessing you too are making some "contribution" in your career as well.

The ancient Greeks made many major contributions to early science, it does not mean Zeus is god.


You'll notice that on no level does LakeGeorgeMan seek to actually engage any of my points, however good or bad they might be. Instead he resorts to childish 'nuh uhs' and 'arguments from outrage' as well as patronising arrogance implying that without the protection of the constitution Christians wouldn't be able to teach creation.


gosh...I never said "nuh uhs" nor was my argument from outrage...you're trying to "psychoanalyze me"...

if you don't think our Constitution is a valuable protector of religous freedom, let me know how you make out trying to open your church in Mecca.


He's right that it would take a lot more than his say-so to convince me of evolution, but that's mainly because evolution is so ridiculous.


trust me when I say I have no illusion in my ability to convince you of anything...we are just having an innocent exchange on a backwater website... if I said the earth was not the center of the universe, I'm sure you would say that is "only a theory" until we can "prove it" with an "observable repeatable experiment in real time."


In engineering we have an in joke. It's called the perpetual motion machine. Every so often someone comes along and says that they can produce a heat-machine that operates at 100% efficiency. All the engineers laugh at the dummy.

What LakeGeorgeMan fails to realise is that evolution is the new joke and he's the dummy.

ouch...another witty, callous insult from a loving Christian engineer who moonlights in biology and information theory... don't worry I forgive you...

I’m just hoping you don’t keep this up and turn into a “moral disaster”


"Perchance you who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it.
-- Giordano Bruno, written on the day of Bruno's burning at the stake by the Christian authorities for (among other things) the crime of believing the universe was a vast and infinite space

[Yog^sothoth]

wow. the response to a post like that will be fun to watch indeed!


Indeed as in, I said to myself, WOW! That post will be fun to see responded too!

[DBoone]

Here's a challenge for parents children and teachers alike. If we want to teach evolution in our schools, what sorts of classroom experiments can we conduct to demonstrate this theory? Can it be taught and observed the same way that we teach gravity and electricity? If we can't teach something as demonstrably true can we call it science? No, not for the evolutionist nor the creationist. Neither can be demonstrated in the classroom. Does that mean we take these theories out of the science room? Yes. Do we take them out of our schools? Not necessarily. They still have value to be taught from a philosophical POV, and even compared at this level with many other worldviews, and may the best theory win.

[LGM]

Yesterday @ 09:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114942#post114942)
DBoone:

Here's a challenge for parents children and teachers alike...


Here's a challenge for DBoone and others, if you have no understanding of what evolution is, what scientific theories are, what a scientific "fact" is...then why post about it?

Evolution is both a "fact" - that the genes of populations change over time, and a theory - the exact mechanisms that contribute to and cause the changes.


If we want to teach evolution in our schools, what sorts of classroom experiments can we conduct to demonstrate this theory?


I would suggest we bring in DBoone and his wife, their parents, and their children to the classroom and show everyone that while they may share similar features, that the genepool of this simple 3 generation model has changed over time. :lol:


Can it be taught and observed the same way that we teach gravity and electricity?


Yes it can and is.

The ignorance of this question is both astounding and frightening. It shows a total lack of understanding of science, the scientific method and how science is taught. It is also why it is so dangerous for people like DBoone and others to be potentially involved in a school board or legislature and be in a position to make policy on things like this.

The irony of your question is that your example of "gravity" is a perfect example to demonstrate.

Before Newton's Universal Theory of Gravity, what exactly do think educated people (15th and 16th century versions of DBoone) thought held the "heavens" - the planets and the stars - in place?
(pssst...it was the same God that "created" all the plants and animals).

A scientific theory must pass every test. It can be falsified but never verified, because the next datum might disagree.

Karl Popper, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, wrote:

"But I shall admit a system as an empirical or scientific theory only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as the criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience."

So Newton's Theory of Gravity was confirmed many times over two hundred years, but the excess precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit falsified it. By correctly fitting all of the previous 200 years of data, and also correctly explaining the motion of Mercury and the bending of light by the Sun, Einstein's General Relativity became the new and still reigning Theory of Gravity.

Are religious theories falsifiable by experience? Some are: for example, the theory of Biblical Inerrancy could be falsified by self-contradictions in the Bible - and it is! But almost all Young Earth Creationists swear by biblical inerrancy nonetheless. How is this possible? Most religious beliefs are matters of faith: a belief held in the absence of evidence or even despite contrary evidence. Such faith-based beliefs are not falsifiable by experience, and are thus not part of any scientific theory.


Now say I'm a member of the "Ultra-Fundamentalist Church of God is All Knowing" congregation in Dboone's town and I'm against teaching "gravity" in public schools.
It's my church's contention that the "heavens" are in fact still held in place by the hand of God and his invisible angels, and that "gravity" is just a "theory", an illusion supported by godless liberal Christians like DBoone. Until you can "prove" it's really gravity causing the Earth to orbit the sun, and not God, I don't want you teaching that to my children.

Do you see :argh: the irony :argh: in the analogy you used? :argh:

By the way, I'm just curious, how does one "observe" electricity in Dboone's science classroom?



If we can't teach something as demonstrably true can we call it science? No, not for the evolutionist nor the creationist. Neither can be demonstrated in the classroom. Does that mean we take these theories out of the science room? Yes. Do we take them out of our schools? Not necessarily. They still have value to be taught from a philosophical POV, and even compared at this level with many other worldviews, and may the best theory win.

:argh:

sigh....what more can I say, my head is so sore from banging against this very solid wall. Here is what other men much smarter than I have already said...


The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.
Daniel Boorstin

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert Einstein

[Marc Schindler]

I have 2.5 questions, one for Yog^sothoth and 1.5 for DBoone.

Without getting into details of what I think everyone recognizes is a very broad and complex subject, I just wanted to pick one little nit: calling the Scopes trial "almost a fraud" isn't quite correct. This kind of trial is held often when parties want to test a law, and are known as test cases. No one "defrauded" or even "almost defrauded" anyone.

The question(s) for DBoone: It always makes me wonder that one reason some people want to home-school is so they don't have to teach their children evolution. Now, I'm not going to address the pros and cons of homeschooling per se here, but I live in a jurisdiction where if you want a high school diploma (especially a university matriculation certificate which increases your chances of getting into university), you have to write what we call diploma exams at the end of Grade 12 (kind of like Britain's A exams). The curriculum is set by a committee of teachers, parents, topical experts and civil servants, and Biology 30, our senior, AP class in biology, includes an extensive segment on evolution.

My question is this: if you live in a jurisdiction which does not have this kind of setup*, would you agree to allow school boards to grant your children "qualified diplomas," or diplomas but without expertise in biology, for instance? [*naturally this question wouldn't even arise in the jurisdiction where I live; we have homeschooling, but if you don't pass the diplomas you don't graduate. Period]

My half-question is more of a musing. It always seems odd to me that those who want religion in public school are the first to want sex education out of public school.

I realize neither of these may apply to you personally -- you just gave me an opportunity to muse over them aloud, so to speak.

[Yog^sothoth]

Without getting into details of what I think everyone recognizes is a very broad and complex subject, I just wanted to pick one little nit: calling the Scopes trial "almost a fraud" isn't quite correct. This kind of trial is held often when parties want to test a law, and are known as test cases. No one "defrauded" or even "almost defrauded" anyone.


This is an interpretation which is brought up in several of the links I looked at. I went with another interpretation, that of the common man's interpretation, that of what could almost be a hoax. It is interpreted this way in as such that it was not a trial that in most people's minds, was legit.

The fact that it was merely testing a law is as much of a testament of your point as well as mine.

Ain't interpretation grand! :teeth:

on a second note: Holy cow i'm tired......holy......cow.....sigh

[Ryokan]

For the first time ever I am going to cheerlead.
Go Lake George Man!:thumb:

[NormATive]

Just a teensy, weensy, little, correction. The title of Mr. Darwin's book is Origin of Species, not Origin of THE Species.

I know it's a small point for those who have not read the book, but it makes all the difference in the world to those of us who have.

That is all.

Norm A. Tive

[HRG_new]

Here's a challenge for parents children and teachers alike. If we want to teach evolution in our schools, what sorts of classroom experiments can we conduct to demonstrate this theory? Can it be taught and observed the same way that we teach gravity and electricity?

A gene sequencer (which demonstrates evolution and common descent via the nested hierarchy) would actually fit much better into a classroom than a neutrino detector (which demonstrates the existence of neutrinos via their reaction products) or a g-2-experiment (which tests electrodynamics).

IOW, evolution is as established experimentally as neutrinos or photons are.

If we can't teach something as demonstrably true can we call it science? No, not for the evolutionist nor the creationist.

But common descent is as demonstrably true as gravity. Can you measure in a classroom the gravitational attraction between Jupiter and one of its moons ?

Please note that the word "evolution" denotes both a fact and a theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution, just as the theory of gravity explains that apples fall and planets move in approximate ellipses.

Regards,
HRG.

[bandecoot]

Here's a challenge for parents children and teachers alike. If we want to teach evolution in our schools, what sorts of classroom experiments can we conduct to demonstrate this theory?.

It could be shown if classrooms had access to a PCR sequencer. The method and its applications can be found very easily.
"Critical reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology26(3/4):301-334 1991 CRC press." Is one such article that you can get a copy of from any College library. The Cetus Corp of 14000 53rd st Emeryvile CA 94608 will send you any information you could ask for for free, so will Perkin-Elmer.

Any number of tests would then be able to be run to show nested hierarchies across a number of species. It would also be valuable workplace training for those about to enter the Field of Biology or Biochemistry.


Can it be taught and observed the same way that we teach gravity and electricity?

I am a little concerned here, one cannot observe electricity. One can only observe its effects on material objects, light bulbs, resistors and of course gauges and meters. Electricity itself is invisible, should we stop teaching Electric Theory because we cannot observe it directly? Gravity ,too, is only shown to exist by its effects, should we stop teaching Gravitational theory?

If we can't teach something as demonstrably true can we call it science? No, not for the evolutionist nor the creationist. Neither can be demonstrated in the classroom. Does that mean we take these theories out of the science room? Yes..

I think you are mistaking the concepts out of an understandable ignorance of the methods and methodology used in Biology and Biochemistry. These are complex subjects and the tools that are used have become very subtle and sensitive.

For example In my own work whilst studying Molecular Archaeology, We used a PCR sequencer to amplify samples that were often as small as 110-150 BP. We did this on a residues found on a 12000YO stone knife to determine the animals that had been butchered with the knife in question. We found 3 distinct species Kangaroo, Goanna and Bilby. We did this by taking hair and bood residues off the knife, made what are essentially copies of that material so that we could get a large enough sample to run through a Gel and then compared our results with index specimens of animals that exist today.

While the DNA on the knife was fragmentary we found enough matches to pin it down to the 3 animals mentioned above. Not subspecies, just species.

Do we take them out of our schools? Not necessarily. They still have value to be taught from a philosophical POV, and even compared at this level with many other worldviews, and may the best theory win.

I do not expect you to have the level of knowledge that I have, for the simple reason that, by and large, you don't need it in your day to day life.

But if you are going to get involved with the political side of creation/id then you are playing with your children's education. Their future livelihood will depend on them being well educated in all matters.

The methods and methodologies are robust and used in thousands of labs all over the world. And guess what lies at the heart of all of the tests and methods, medical and diagnostic. The Theory of Evolution, in fact the only people who have a problem with Evolution are those who do not understand it.

Bandecoot ( a subspecies of Bilby)

[Tom Elder]

I have never contributed to a forum such as this, so if I offend against the protocols, I apologize in advance. I have enjoyed reading the volleys, so I will express my thoughts and see what happens.

I am a Christian high school biology teacher who has taught evolution for 15 years, and have accepted evolution’s primary tenets as an accurate description of how the biological world works since I was able to comprehend them (probably around 10 years of age).

For clarity’s sake, this is how I sum up evolution for my students:

-“species change over time”. Corollaries include:

-species give rise to other species.

-humans as a species are physically related to other life forms. This last is where the rub is for my students, for many feel this is in opposition to their religious beliefs. I think it also offends their pride in their belief in the distinct, special place humans have in creation.



I attended Sunday School since a child, so received a reasonably good religious instruction and understanding of the Bible, but date my Christian life as starting with an old fashioned “come to Jesus” altar call at the age of 16. My religious convictions have sustained me through life in a way that my scientific interests never could.

One of my philosophical (as opposed to strictly religious) beliefs is, that the truth is important, and the universe is not self-contradictory (there is objective truth).



Example: Earth cannot be simultaneously 10,000 years old and 4.6 billion years old.



Here is my concern for my students, which I have not seen expressed often:

Many of my most devout students are being told, “This is an either/or proposition. You can accept evolutionary theory, or you can be a Christian.” And they are not getting that message from me, they are getting that message from their religious instructors. My fear is this: Their Christian beliefs are founded on faith, belief in things unseen. Faith is notoriously slippery. The evidence they will see for evolutionary change, on the other hand, will be so vast and compelling, that it becomes as obvious as the blueness of the sky. Faced with a (false) demand to choose, how many of them will dwindle in faith, and neglect their spiritual Christian life?

I think that Christian leaders who phrase this debate in the “either you’re a Christian, or you’re an evolutionist”, are playing with fire. It is, first of all, demonstrably untrue. Many of the Christian sects have made their peace with evolution. (Of course, some people will dismiss all such persons and sects as apostate non-Christians).



I pass over all of the creationist claims, which I have examined somewhat obsessively, as psuedo-science unworthy of the continued rebuttal it requires. Except for one claim: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”…in that sense, I suppose, I am a creationist.



If this is not the appropriate forum for the above, please disregard it.

[Ranger]

Before looking at evolution, one must understand the presuppostions being used first. As Christians we base our arguments on the Word of God which Christians claim never change. Evolution is based on the interpretation of existing observations which change based on the collection of observations and the interpretation of the observations. As soon as the Christian excepts the methodology of the evolutionsist, he has stepped outside the realm of Christian doctrine. No where in the Bible does it instruct us to base our faith on man's knowledge/wisdom. In fact James warns against the wisdom of this world. The bottom line is that Christianity is based on the Bible and faith. If I use observed data to support my "unchanging" belief, and the observed data changes (something science readily admits) then my argument has to change.

Not wishing to do a disservice to science, a field in which I have worked for 30 years, an unregenerate yet disciplined scientist would refer to evolution as a theory in the same way that the scientist would refer to creationism as a theory. Philosophically science denies the existence of the metaphysical, which is a fiat denial of God. The argument against the metaphysical becomes circular:
There is no God. Science explains phenomena by natural causes. Any phenomena which cannot be explained have natural causes because there is no God.

150 years ago the same "science" which declared spontaneous generation as the cause of life also denied the existence of God. The theory of evolution has also been amended to make it correlate with the data. Please note that correlation is not cause and effect. For instance, there is a very high correlation between the amount of # of hours spent in bed and the death rate. This does not mean that sleep causes people to die and if they never went to bed they would never die. The cause and effect of the correlation is that sick people who are dying spend a lot of time in bed.

Although my faith is not based on observed data, I am willing to point out some the inconsistencies in the theory of evolution.
1. When I first learned about evolution, the popular theory was that evolution has been an ongoing process which occurred slowly over time. Numerous examples of prehistoric fish were used to show that the fossil record supported this theory. This theory was popular because it was thought that eventually all the gaps would be filled in. Unfortunately, this has not happened. A variation of the theory was put forward, punctuated evolution. The lack of fossil record is explained by sudden jumps over a short period. There is little logic as to how this could happen. If you called the jumps God, you would have the same argument of the creationist. How do you God (punctuated evolution) made man. There is no evidence of it but that is the way it must have happened. Further, a basic tenet of evolution is that most mutations are deleterious. Punctuated evolution is the result of accelerated mutation or increased evolutionary pressure. In either case this would mean an increase in the mortality rate of the general population. Example, when I was in college during a lab exam we were shown a bowl of various organisms in alcohol. The question was why is evolution no longer occurring? The answer was that all the organisms were dead.
2. According to Romans 1 the natural man will deny the obvious general revelation in nature of God. Perhaps the most intereseting statement is the one I have read that only 50 genes separate chimps from man. With the human genome project sequencing completed, this statement has surfaced again. Unfortunately, mapping the genes is not the same as sequencing. Most geneticist place the number of human genes between 25,000 and 150,000 with the best guess around 50,000. With such variation it is a little tough to compare this to the chimps. I suspect that the 50 gene difference is based on total number of nucleotides. Again this is like comparing the building of the Mackinaw bridge to the space shuttle; they both have nearly the same number of bolts in them.
3. For years we have heard that chimps are our closest relatives based on homologous resemblence. Molecular geneticists have altered that to make the yeast, Sacchromyces cerevisiae, our closest "cousin". This is a tough sell to the public. The complexity of certain systems raises some genuine questions. My favorite is the human system in the brain which shuts down blood flow to all organs but the brain while you are drowning. Everyone has this system. What would have to happen for this system to evolve.
Each component would have to be the result of a mutation.
There would have to be an advantage to that mutation.
The advantage would occur only when some falls in the water and nearly drowns. Those who drown don't count as they are eliminated or at least diminished from the gene pool.
This gene or genes must become 100% in the gene pool.
Oh, yes, there is a time limit for this to happen.
Some have posited pigs as relatives over chimps. Unlike chimps, pigs and man are omnivores, and are of tempermental disposition.
4. The most difficult bridge to make between theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution is the creation of man. Man was made in the image of God unlike all the other creatures. A theistic evolutionists must claim an entirely different mechanism for the creation of man than that of the rest of the animals or that the image of God is not an innate part of man's being but was given to him at a later time. The former argument fabricates a mechanism that is both extra-biblical and extra-Darwin supported by neither. The latter argument removes or diminishes the image of God in man in that Adam's parents did not have it assuming Adam as the first man. It also leaves many unanswered questions like did non-humans reproduce with humans after the "creation" (however defined)? Why is there no biblical or historical record of such overlap.
5. Although not generally used, the argument of species is pertinent to the nature of science. The bible does not define species. Man created the term and tried to force it on the bible. The more man looks at nature, the vaguer the term gets. There are more classifications that do not referrence Linnaeus than do. Most evolutionists like to talk about horses and donkeys. I prefer to discuss the 2 Kingdoms (plant and animal)... err, 4 kingdoms... err 5 kingdoms. Shucks, lets just talk about the one's in Bergey. For those in the field of microbiology everyone knows about the changing board members for Bergey's, the lumpers and the splinterers. Some editions combine classifications and others separate them extensively; and then there is the ubiquitous "unrelated genera".
6. I was reading an article the other day (not in a journal) where some scientists have declared that evolution has stopped. Hmmm.

Let's some up.
7 day creationists have faith in an ominpotent God who made the world by the Word of his power.
Evolutionists have faith in theory in which the frequent changes are often contradictory. The various theories cannot even agree on the basic line of succession and mechanism by which man came to be here (anthropologist v. molecular biologists). When no evidence is present, unsupport suppositions are made based on a presupposition that natural processes must have caused this.
Prior to 1850 there was no such thing as a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolutists must either deny the image of God in man as in the bible or else they must create a construct of a separate creation of man apart from creation which is neither biblical nor consistent with Darwinian evolution.

[Tom Elder]

Before looking at evolution, one must understand the presuppostions being used first. As Christians we base our arguments on the Word of God which Christians claim never change. Evolution is based on the interpretation of existing observations which change based on the collection of observations and the interpretation of the observations. As soon as the Christian excepts the methodology of the evolutionsist, he has stepped outside the realm of Christian doctrine. No where in the Bible does it instruct us to base our faith on man's knowledge/wisdom. In fact James warns against the wisdom of this world. The bottom line is that Christianity is based on the Bible and faith. If I use observed data to support my "unchanging" belief, and the observed data changes (something science readily admits) then my argument has to change.

Not wishing to do a disservice to science, a field in which I have worked for 30 years, an unregenerate yet disciplined scientist would refer to evolution as a theory in the same way that the scientist would refer to creationism as a theory. Philosophically science denies the existence of the metaphysical, which is a fiat denial of God. The argument against the metaphysical becomes circular:
There is no God. Science explains phenomena by natural causes. Any phenomena which cannot be explained have natural causes because there is no God.

150 years ago the same "science" which declared spontaneous generation as the cause of life also denied the existence of God. The theory of evolution has also been amended to make it correlate with the data. Please note that correlation is not cause and effect. For instance, there is a very high correlation between the amount of # of hours spent in bed and the death rate. This does not mean that sleep causes people to die and if they never went to bed they would never die. The cause and effect of the correlation is that sick people who are dying spend a lot of time in bed.

Although my faith is not based on observed data, I am willing to point out some the inconsistencies in the theory of evolution.
1. When I first learned about evolution, the popular theory was that evolution has been an ongoing process which occurred slowly over time. Numerous examples of prehistoric fish were used to show that the fossil record supported this theory. This theory was popular because it was thought that eventually all the gaps would be filled in. Unfortunately, this has not happened. A variation of the theory was put forward, punctuated evolution. The lack of fossil record is explained by sudden jumps over a short period. There is little logic as to how this could happen. If you called the jumps God, you would have the same argument of the creationist. How do you God (punctuated evolution) made man. There is no evidence of it but that is the way it must have happened. Further, a basic tenet of evolution is that most mutations are deleterious. Punctuated evolution is the result of accelerated mutation or increased evolutionary pressure. In either case this would mean an increase in the mortality rate of the general population. Example, when I was in college during a lab exam we were shown a bowl of various organisms in alcohol. The question was why is evolution no longer occurring? The answer was that all the organisms were dead.
2. According to Romans 1 the natural man will deny the obvious general revelation in nature of God. Perhaps the most intereseting statement is the one I have read that only 50 genes separate chimps from man. With the human genome project sequencing completed, this statement has surfaced again. Unfortunately, mapping the genes is not the same as sequencing. Most geneticist place the number of human genes between 25,000 and 150,000 with the best guess around 50,000. With such variation it is a little tough to compare this to the chimps. I suspect that the 50 gene difference is based on total number of nucleotides. Again this is like comparing the building of the Mackinaw bridge to the space shuttle; they both have nearly the same number of bolts in them.
3. For years we have heard that chimps are our closest relatives based on homologous resemblence. Molecular geneticists have altered that to make the yeast, Sacchromyces cerevisiae, our closest "cousin". This is a tough sell to the public. The complexity of certain systems raises some genuine questions. My favorite is the human system in the brain which shuts down blood flow to all organs but the brain while you are drowning. Everyone has this system. What would have to happen for this system to evolve.
Each component would have to be the result of a mutation.
There would have to be an advantage to that mutation.
The advantage would occur only when some falls in the water and nearly drowns. Those who drown don't count as they are eliminated or at least diminished from the gene pool.
This gene or genes must become 100% in the gene pool.
Oh, yes, there is a time limit for this to happen.
Some have posited pigs as relatives over chimps. Unlike chimps, pigs and man are omnivores, and are of tempermental disposition.
4. The most difficult bridge to make between theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution is the creation of man. Man was made in the image of God unlike all the other creatures. A theistic evolutionists must claim an entirely different mechanism for the creation of man than that of the rest of the animals or that the image of God is not an innate part of man's being but was given to him at a later time. The former argument fabricates a mechanism that is both extra-biblical and extra-Darwin supported by neither. The latter argument removes or diminishes the image of God in man in that Adam's parents did not have it assuming Adam as the first man. It also leaves many unanswered questions like did non-humans reproduce with humans after the "creation" (however defined)? Why is there no biblical or historical record of such overlap.
5. Although not generally used, the argument of species is pertinent to the nature of science. The bible does not define species. Man created the term and tried to force it on the bible. The more man looks at nature, the vaguer the term gets. There are more classifications that do not referrence Linnaeus than do. Most evolutionists like to talk about horses and donkeys. I prefer to discuss the 2 Kingdoms (plant and animal)... err, 4 kingdoms... err 5 kingdoms. Shucks, lets just talk about the one's in Bergey. For those in the field of microbiology everyone knows about the changing board members for Bergey's, the lumpers and the splinterers. Some editions combine classifications and others separate them extensively; and then there is the ubiquitous "unrelated genera".
6. I was reading an article the other day (not in a journal) where some scientists have declared that evolution has stopped. Hmmm.

Let's some up.
7 day creationists have faith in an ominpotent God who made the world by the Word of his power.
Evolutionists have faith in theory in which the frequent changes are often contradictory. The various theories cannot even agree on the basic line of succession and mechanism by which man came to be here (anthropologist v. molecular biologists). When no evidence is present, unsupport suppositions are made based on a presupposition that natural processes must have caused this.
Prior to 1850 there was no such thing as a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolutists must either deny the image of God in man as in the bible or else they must create a construct of a separate creation of man apart from creation which is neither biblical nor consistent with Darwinian evolution.
Ranger,
I would like you to consider what it means to be made in the "image of God"...I was taught, that until the Incarnation, that God was not a material being, and so didn't have 2 eyes, 4 limbs, etc, etc. I was taught that God is a moral Creator, calling things into existence that did not exist before. When I draw a picture (and if I'm behaving myself), I am indeed in the very "image of God". A crude and poor image, of course.
As a sidebar, since Christ's advent on Earth, I believe it would be more accurate to describe God as human, "very God" and "very man".
Historically speaking, I dispute your contention that no theistic evolutionists existed before 1850. Have you canvassed the histories of all pre-Darwinian evolutionists, to find out their religious beliefs? It'd be a big and impossible job.
Of course, the difference between humans and nonhuman species is rich ground for discussion, as is (for me at least), the creation of the universe itself, and the arising of life on Earth. Suffice it to say that I think there is a qualitative (not merely quantitative) difference between existence and nonl-existence, life and non-life, and the morally-oriented and conscience-stricken Homo sapiens vs the rest of the species. For me, each of these contrasts are easy to explain as a Christian, but I don't look to them to buttress my faith.
I paraphrase C.S. Lewis here: he was updating an old saying to the effect of, "Be good, sweet maid, and let those who can be wise." His revision was something like, "Be good, sweet maid, and don't forget that that includes being as wise as you can". To my mind, many people who see a seeming conflict between their interpretation of the Bible, and what science seems to reveal, should look at both sides of their conflict. Is it possible that they have been misunderstanding the Bible? (Of course, them's fighting words). And please don't tell me that there is no human filter, no "interpretation", to the Bible: if that were true, all Christians would agree.
Scientifically speaking, science doesn't deny the metaphysical: instead, it maintains that they are beyond scientific study. If you believe that science denies the metaphysical, then follow it to the vile and bilious end, then you must think all scientists are strict materialists and that none of them believe in God. And of course, science truly WOULD be the enemy of the Church. Surely you are not maintaining this.
I will leave your other observations on science, which I must say are as unconvincing as most creationist ideas I have heard, to the other observers of this thread.
Tom ("without a moniker") Elder
(p.s. Do I need a nom de plume?)

[DunnySaze]

Welcome Ranger, and thoughtful opening post.

Not wishing to do a disservice to science, a field in which I have worked for 30 years, an unregenerate yet disciplined scientist would refer to evolution as a theory in the same way that the scientist would refer to creationism as a theory.

I'm not sure what field of science you worked in, but most scientists I know would not call creationism a scientific theory, certainly not as that word is understood to scientists in the technical sense, because creationism does not have the hallmarks of a scientific theory.

Philosophically science denies the existence of the metaphysical, which is a fiat denial of God.

No, science uses a methodological, not a philosophical naturalism. All sciences do this. It is not an a priori assumption, but an a posteriori conclusion. We're still wating for the people who demand that scientists include the supernatural tell them how to do it in some way without destroying the effectiveness of the science we already have.

The argument against the metaphysical becomes circular:
There is no God. Science explains phenomena by natural causes. Any phenomena which cannot be explained have natural causes because there is no God.

No, science cannot make such conclusions because natural observations are the only kind we know how to make. If you were correct, there would be no Christian scientists, and there most certainly are. Science is silent on the question of God. That's not the same as saying He doesn't exist.

150 years ago the same "science" which declared spontaneous generation as the cause of life also denied the existence of God.

:huh: Not following you here.

The theory of evolution has also been amended to make it correlate with the data.

The theory was derived to explain the data, just like all other scientific theories. Like any theory, we must be prepared to ammend or even abandon it depending on what new data turns up and how the tests proceed. Testing theories is a critical part of science. Evolution has passed every test so far. That's why we have such confidence (not faith) in it.

Please note that correlation is not cause and effect. For instance, there is a very high correlation between the amount of # of hours spent in bed and the death rate. This does not mean that sleep causes people to die and if they never went to bed they would never die. The cause and effect of the correlation is that sick people who are dying spend a lot of time in bed.

I agree. Correlation is not causation.

Although my faith is not based on observed data, I am willing to point out some the inconsistencies in the theory of evolution.

By all means do so.

1. When I first learned about evolution, the popular theory was that evolution has been an ongoing process which occurred slowly over time. Numerous examples of prehistoric fish were used to show that the fossil record supported this theory. This theory was popular because it was thought that eventually all the gaps would be filled in. Unfortunately, this has not happened. A variation of the theory was put forward, punctuated evolution. The lack of fossil record is explained by sudden jumps over a short period. There is little logic as to how this could happen. If you called the jumps God, you would have the same argument of the creationist. How do you God (punctuated evolution) made man. There is no evidence of it but that is the way it must have happened.

Contrary to popular opinion, punctuated equilibrium was not invented to explain away the fossil record. It is based on extensive studies and positive evidence. Proposing new theories to explain the data is part of science. See this Punctuated Equilibria (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html) FAQ for more detail.

Further, a basic tenet of evolution is that most mutations are deleterious.

Most mutations are actually neutral, but of those that effect the individual, most are indeed detrimental.

Punctuated evolution is the result of accelerated mutation or increased evolutionary pressure. In either case this would mean an increase in the mortality rate of the general population. Example, when I was in college during a lab exam we were shown a bowl of various organisms in alcohol. The question was why is evolution no longer occurring? The answer was that all the organisms were dead.

Being dead certainly stops the evolution of a population, but we already know that. Punctuated equilibria is not the result of "accelerated mutation or increased evolutionary pressure". Read the above FAQ.

2. According to Romans 1 the natural man will deny the obvious general revelation in nature of God. Perhaps the most intereseting statement is the one I have read that only 50 genes separate chimps from man. With the human genome project sequencing completed, this statement has surfaced again. Unfortunately, mapping the genes is not the same as sequencing. Most geneticist place the number of human genes between 25,000 and 150,000 with the best guess around 50,000. With such variation it is a little tough to compare this to the chimps. I suspect that the 50 gene difference is based on total number of nucleotides. Again this is like comparing the building of the Mackinaw bridge to the space shuttle; they both have nearly the same number of bolts in them.

I think you are very much dismissing real similarities. Do the Mackinaw bridge to the space shuttle have many large sections identical or virtually identical like we see in human/chimp genomes? It's more like comparing English spoken in England and that in the America. If you can give me a better testable biological reason this can be so besides relationship via descent with modification, I'd like to hear it.

3. For years we have heard that chimps are our closest relatives based on homologous resemblence.

This is correct, and it's still correct.

Molecular geneticists have altered that to make the yeast, Sacchromyces cerevisiae, our closest "cousin". This is a tough sell to the public.

I don't think you're reading this correctly. Source please.

The complexity of certain systems raises some genuine questions. My favorite is the human system in the brain which shuts down blood flow to all organs but the brain while you are drowning. Everyone has this system. What would have to happen for this system to evolve.
Each component would have to be the result of a mutation.
There would have to be an advantage to that mutation.
The advantage would occur only when some falls in the water and nearly drowns. Those who drown don't count as they are eliminated or at least diminished from the gene pool.
This gene or genes must become 100% in the gene pool.
Oh, yes, there is a time limit for this to happen.

I think this is a cold adaptation rather than specifically a drowning response. Protecting the vitals in times of cold has certain selctive advantages.

Some have posited pigs as relatives over chimps. Unlike chimps, pigs and man are omnivores, and are of tempermental disposition.

Not all pigs. And I note that chimps do eat meat on occasion, when they can get it.

4. The most difficult bridge to make between theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution is the creation of man. Man was made in the image of God unlike all the other creatures. A theistic evolutionists must claim an entirely different mechanism for the creation of man than that of the rest of the animals or that the image of God is not an innate part of man's being but was given to him at a later time. The former argument fabricates a mechanism that is both extra-biblical and extra-Darwin supported by neither. The latter argument removes or diminishes the image of God in man in that Adam's parents did not have it assuming Adam as the first man. It also leaves many unanswered questions like did non-humans reproduce with humans after the "creation" (however defined)? Why is there no biblical or historical record of such overlap.

I don't undertand this paragraph. There is certainly no problem as far as evolution is concerned for the evolution of humans. The fossil data is quite clear.

5. Although not generally used, the argument of species is pertinent to the nature of science. The bible does not define species. Man created the term and tried to force it on the bible.

Well we did create it. But to try and catagorize what we observe so we can understand it, not so we could force it in the Bible.

The more man looks at nature, the vaguer the term gets. There are more classifications that do not referrence Linnaeus than do. Most evolutionists like to talk about horses and donkeys. I prefer to discuss the 2 Kingdoms (plant and animal)... err, 4 kingdoms... err 5 kingdoms. Shucks, lets just talk about the one's in Bergey.

:shrug: Like I say, scientists have to go where the data leads them, and must be prepared to change course. It'd be easier just to follow the Creationist course and have one "theory" that can never change, but then we wouldn't be doing science.

The best way to build an ax is out of stone ... no copper ... no bronze ... no iron ... no steel. See how ideas can change?

For those in the field of microbiology everyone knows about the changing board members for Bergey's, the lumpers and the splinterers. Some editions combine classifications and others separate them extensively; and then there is the ubiquitous "unrelated genera".

Not just microbiology, but determining speciation is especially difficult for paleontologists who have no hope of using the biological species concept.

6. I was reading an article the other day (not in a journal) where some scientists have declared that evolution has stopped. Hmmm.

Source?

Let's some up.
7 day creationists have faith in an ominpotent God who made the world by the Word of his power.
Evolutionists have faith in theory in which the frequent changes are often contradictory.

No, not faith. We have confidence in it. I think you have said very little about evolution above. Some things about systematics and some unsupported assertions.

The various theories cannot even agree on the basic line of succession and mechanism by which man came to be here (anthropologist v. molecular biologists). When no evidence is present, unsupport suppositions are made based on a presupposition that natural processes must have caused this.

Nonsense. Not knowing the exact successional details does not mean we don't have any evidence for evolution.

Prior to 1850 there was no such thing as a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolutists must either deny the image of God in man as in the bible or else they must create a construct of a separate creation of man apart from creation which is neither biblical nor consistent with Darwinian evolution.

I think the theistic evolutionists would tend to disagree.

[Keith Rex]

[QUOTE=yxboom] Science Fact, or Science Myth? High School Education and Evolution

There is much smoke and little light about this debate. The fact is that Evolution was invented as a Rival Religion to Christianity. but while darwin is held up as its infallible prophet, the fact is that Darwin did not believe in evolution. nor did Darwin believe in Genetics. the beliefs of Darwin are quite counter to the beleifs of modern evolutionists. Darwin believed in Lamarkism - which is currently denounced by them.
To teach evolution in schools without disclosing these controversies would be entirely dishonest and could be construed as a conspiracy to corrupt the youth.
The actual evidence of biology, the fossils etc show clearly that it was not an evolutionary process. The word evolution means a predetermined orderly development with clear endpoint. Whether you take a theist or non theist stance, clealry Nature is not like that. Nature is messy. There is no certainty of any outcome. Keith Rex

[NormATive]

Oh, my. Where to begin?

The fact is that Evolution was invented as a Rival Religion to Christianity.I would love to hear your explanation for THAT speculation! Sources?

the fact is that Darwin did not believe in evolution. nor did Darwin believe in Genetics.Well, first of all, le'ts determine exactly what you mean by "evolution." Darwin postulated five theories on the subject:


Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation (source: What is Darwinism by Joel Hanes Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/ )
Further, Darwin never suggested one "believe" in these particular theories. They were offered as a scientific explanation of what he observed in the natural world. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Actually, Darwin was somewhat reluctant to release his theories to the scientific community, fearing the misunderstanding you exhibit in your post. He realized the potential conflict with the ecclesiastical societies of his day, and only published when another scientist was about to release a similar work.

the beliefs of Darwin are quite counter to the beleifs of modern evolutionists.If you mean by this statement that modern evolutionary science has taken a different tack, then I would agree with you. But, Darwin's basic theories are the foundation of ALL current discoveries. I think Darwin would be greatly impressed with the advances in medical science as a result of contemporary study.

Darwin believed in Lamarkism - which is currently denounced by them.Scientists don't "denounce" things, they simply discover, through rigorous experimentation and observation, that a particular theory, paradigm, or hypothesis no longer is supported, and move on.


To teach evolution in schools without disclosing these controversies would be entirely dishonest and could be construed as a conspiracy to corrupt the youth.Controversies? Conspiracy? This is elementary stuff, and is routinely taught in the SIXTH GRADE! Don't you pay attention to what your kids are learning in school? Heck, every one of your "concerns" about the theory are written right in the final chapters of Origin of Species. Darwin detailed every conceivable counter argument to his theories. If his intent was to "corrupt the youth," you would think he could have done a better job of it, and left all that wishy-washy self criticism out of the final printing.


The actual evidence of biology, the fossils etc show clearly that it was not an evolutionary process.What evidence? Please be specific. What fossils "show clearly" that changes in species are not an evolutionary process?

The word evolution means a predetermined orderly development with clear endpoint. Whether you take a theist or non theist stance, clealry Nature is not like that. Nature is messy. There is no certainty of any outcome. Keith RexI disagree with your definition of evolution here - at least from the perspective of what I understand, but would agree with you that nature is messy and sometimes; unpredictable.

NORM

[Sacrificial Ram]

Removed by author