The state school superintendent proposes banning the word evolution and replacing it with "biological change over time" After calling the word evolution a buzzword.
It seems to me that this makes it more of an issue that it would be had the whole issue just been left alone. As they say in that article, what's the point teaching the concept without the word? Isn't that leaving out part of the education to not teach the word with the concept? It seems to me that it is.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Georgia state school Superintendent Kathy Cox has decided that the word "evolution" is "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction" and should be replaced in all Georgia school curriculum with the phrase "biological changes over time".
I agree. I hate buzzwords, don't you? That's why I think we should go one further and replace the phrase "slack-jawed backwater ignoramus" with the phrase "Kathy Cox".
posted
I agree, it seems like it would be difficult to teach the theory of evolution without actually saying "evolution".
Although if creationism is mentioned, I've noticed that teachers usually talk around it in the same dilly-dallying way, never wanting to actually SAY "creationism". Or, if they do, (I've noticed this more) they mention it as a joke to bring the class closer to them. "Those dumb Creationists! Listen, we're going to learn real science here. You will all be smarter because you will be taught to know better."
Also, many parents believe premarital sex is a sin. But in many schools' sex ed, "sin" isn't mentioned, though "intercourse" and "your choice" are.
I bet Ms. Cox was trying to appease parents who object to the teaching (I don't know if it is unilateral in that district in Georgia)of evolution. This way, the kids get taught the concept, a basic tenet of contemporary science, without having to use a word fraught with political conflict.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she was, as you said, trying to tiptoe around the slack-jawwed ignoramuses. Because the truth is, if you don't actually say the word 'evolution' a lot of these bumpkins won't notice that you're teaching the same thing.
BTW, I'm in Georgia and I think it's kind of a silly idea. I just have an idea why she might think it would work.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason sin isn't mentioned except as a literary concept? Its a religious concept, particular to certain religions. And as such, it is banned by the supreme court of the united states. You can't blame the schools for that.
Also, several articles I have seen, though not this one, mention that the superintendent is long known to be an opponent of the theory of evolution. It would be interesting to find out if she is even able to adequately define the theory of evolution (or rather, a theory of evolution, as there are several).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, she seems to be an advocate of creationism, herself.
From another article, in the NY Times:
quote:In the past, Ms. Cox has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools
"I'd leave the state out of it and would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories," she said at a public debate.
quote:David Jackson, an associate professor at the University of Georgia who trains middle school science teachers, said about half the students entering his class each year had little knowledge of evolutionary theory.
"In many cases, they've never been exposed to the basic facts about fossils and the universe," he said. "I think there's already formal and informal discouragements to teaching evolution in the public schools."
posted
I went to junior high school in Marin County, CA, near San Francisco. When teachers taught evolution in my school, (and in my brother's high schools, they have reported), one was not only expected to learn about evolution, was one expected to become a "true believer" and to eschew all other ideologies in favor of "the truth".
My high school in Salt Lake City taught evolution, too, but it was purely instructive, and the 3 science teachers I had were commendably detached from the politics of the issue. After becoming politically sensitized during my stay in The Land of the Left, science in Utah was surprisingly boring.
However, we were taught nothing about religion in our CA school. Not in history, not in English class, nothing. The ignorance of my peers in the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity, not to mention other religions, was astounding. The students were precocious politically, but totally unaware of basic comparative religion.
Isn't religion as crucial a part of humanity as the discovery of the world through science? Why isn't it as disturbing to have children are disconnnected from a long history of religious belief that is fundamental to understanding the world as it is know, as it is to have children ignorant of a geological history or biological history?
I don't think "because science is truth and religion is preference" cuts it. I've found that most scientists are human ( ) and are just as dogmatic about science as preachers are about religion and Marxists are about ideological purity.
posted
I agree that evolution should not be taught as a dogma; this is not a method of stopping that. Particularly as its purely a guideline, so any teacher that wants to use the word is free to. This is a way of allowing teachers that wish to avoid the issue to undermine the scientific evidence behind evolution by simply not presenting it, and if called on it to hide behind this change in standards.
Religion was a major topic in my social studies classes (particularly in middle school), and I'm from a highly liberal area in Indiana (which means only moderately liberal compared to CA ). A lot of schools go far beyond the restrictions on educating about what religion means, though I find it rather amusing that most of the students didn't know a whit about Christianity given that most of their parents were undoubtedly Christian (knowing the US statistics on the subject), and they probably called themselves it as well. Information about religion should be an important part of any social studies curriculum (whether or not the bible is used as an extensive literary example is less important, particularly as that lends itself to preaching far more -- once at a music competition we were housed in a "bible studies" classroom that had wonderful posters on the wall about why the prophecy of Revelation was being fulfilled); in social studies teachers would be (rightly) required to present a wide array of religions rather than just the narrow category covered by the Bible.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were taught lots about religion as it pertained to history. Judaism and Christianity in the Roman Empire, Christianity in the Dark and Middle Ages, the rise of Islam and the prophet Muhommed, the rise of the Church of England, the struggles between Protestants and Catholics in Europe, Puritans and Protestants and the settling of the New World, Judaism in WWII Germany, etc.
When religion became a mover or shaker in history, we learned about it. But, we never did get "this is what these people believed" except for bits on Islam in 7th and 9th grade social studies and history.
And I'd consider New Jersey within sight of California in terms of how far left the state's running... though we're still a ways from catching up.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had teachers who insisted that 1+1=2 and that complete sentences MUST contain a noun AND a verb. Heck, I even had one who seemed absolutely convinced that gravity was responsible for falling objects!!! Imagine, a person trained and hired to teach children actually presenting a subject as if they knew the truth and the rules.
Gosh!
No, we should bend our instruction to the idiocy of the moment and make sure that every silly opinion on the planet has equal time and is treated with basic respect, no matter how ill conceived and unsupportable it is.
If parents want their children exposed to Creationism, they should pay to have a church teach it to them, or make sure they read it themselves. It has no place in a public school unless it is in a religion class or a comedy skit.
Evolution, theory and fact, is worth teaching because any educated person in the world should know the basics of how life evolved on this planet. Whether evolution, the theory, turns out to be correct in ALL predictions is irrelevant. Just as Newtonian physics isn't correct in EVERYTHING, neither will be evolution. Mass ignorance of how science works is not an excuse for dumbing down the curriculum.
If the schools start teaching creationism or stop teaching evolution, I will sue to have my property taxes refunded as it will be a clear sign that the money I gladly spend to educate the children of my local community is being grossly mispent.
I wish I could remember which textbook my junior high school used. I've heard that in the South, the Civil War is taught very differently as in the North (or damnnorth, as one of my southern friends calls it). Apparently it's taught far more in depth and with a more emphasis on the secession of the states,and less on slavery.
My textbooks carefully excised traditional, monotheistic religion wherever it could. For us Jewish = yellow stars and the Holocaust. Christianity = been there, done that, not worth mentioning; Islam = what's that?
Though I did learn a lot about African cultures and nature religions. We learned a lot about Africa. And, of course, Egypt and Sumeria.
I think my school felt the only safe religion is a dead religion.
posted
I propose we make it standard policy to not discuss contraversial terms in school. Discussing the following should be banned too:
Any current event The Constitution and Bill of Rights Sexuality All religions Issues involving any ethnic or racial minority All of the past 10 presidents France The shape of the earth Any interpretation of any book or work of literature
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Bob, I think schoools schould teach religion.
And curriculums are being dumbed down for a myriad of other reasons, not simply because some people object to the teaching of evolution as the only truth.
If there is no room for every possible opinion in school, then schools must choose one main opinion, with the possible option of mentioning other opinions.
How do you propose that one opinion be chosen?
I think Ms. Cox of Georgia was going with the idea of letting the majority of parents and their beliefs decide that the one opinion be taught more as opinion and less as a fact that excludes any other opinion. (Which is usually how evolution is taught.)
Notice that they're STILL teaching evolution, just under a slightly different name.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not supposed to be part of the curriculum. Certainly not integrated into any mainstream classes in core subjects.
That's what we pay for -- the state staying the hell OUT of religion. That means they don't endorse any religion.
So, it's a good thing that currently active religions are not taught in core classes.
Did you have a comparative religions class, though? I would've thought that might cover all manner of faiths.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolution, theory and fact, is worth teaching because any educated person in the world should know the basics of how life evolved on this planet.
But why shouldn't Creationism be taught for precisely the same reason - because any educated person should know how the world was created?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
And its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of science. There is no creationary theory that constitutes a scientific theory, by which is meant a number of things, but particularly including predictive power and dependence on evidence. Students should only learn science in science classes.
I would be more than happy to support the teaching of some creationist theory if someone would outline a scientific creationist theory. I've done a heck of a lot of reading on the subject, and I've yet to find one.
Also, evolution itself is a fact, in that it is something that has been conclusively observed, just as gravity is a fact. Evolutionary theories are possible explanations of evolution, just as gravitational theories are possible explanations of gravity. The jury is still out on the why of it all, but the existence is not in question.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not very good at this devil's advocate thing, Tres. All your objections can be resolved with a dictionary.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Creationism isn't taught in science classes for the same reason that Lamarkianism isn't taught in science classes (except as a negative example -- a discredited theory). The fact that Creationism doesn't fit the known facts about life on Earth renders it useless in a science class, except as a negative example. Leaving aside the fact that its proponents wouldn't want it taught that way, we already have all the negative examples we need so a modern one isn't really useful in a pedagogic sense.
posted
No, no comparative religion classes in junior high. Or high school, for that matter. I knew what I knew then from my father's instruction and the local library.
Actually, your tax dollars go to pay for the school resources (buildings, textbooks) and administration (salaries).
Constitutionally speaking, each state is permitted to choose its own religion. (We're talking historically, not the contemporary understanding of freedom of religion.) You can't legally establish a religion in schools.
But is teaching evolution and creationism the establishment of religion? Is mentioning religious beliefs in the course of education establishing religion? What do you think?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a creationist, in that I believe the Earth was created by God and that man was created with a soul and in God's image.
I object to scientists teaching evolution as a fact and saying their view is the only way it could have happened. That's ridiculous - they have no way of definitively knowing how life came to be on this earth. The odds against full scale molecules to man evolution are so vast they are hardly calculable. In fact, after this post I'm going to insert some figures for you to chew on.
So, yes, I can see her objection but I don't think she's going about it the right way. There is no inherent evil in the word "evolution" Most creationists accept evolution in the form that we accept microevolution, or environmentally or artificial selection that makes small changes in a species.
I can accept for example, that through natural selection a species of gray wolves in the arctic will eventually develop white coats. The genes for white fur are already in the wolves genetic makeup. That is micro evolution. I don't accept that a wolf can eventually become a man.
Bottom line, I agree with HollowEarth's statement in the first post.
quote:t seems to me that this makes it more of an issue that it would be had the whole issue just been left alone.
quote:You're not very good at this devil's advocate thing, Tres. All your objections can be resolved with a dictionary.
If your dictionary says evolution is a theory and creationism isn't, it's time to get a new dictionary.
(Never base arguments on dictionaries, by the way - it's as dogmatic as just quoting the Bible! Unless, of course, the argument is over what the accepted definition of a word is.)
quote:Creationism isn't taught in science classes for the same reason that Lamarkianism isn't taught in science classes (except as a negative example -- a discredited theory). The fact that Creationism doesn't fit the known facts about life on Earth renders it useless in a science class, except as a negative example.
No, no, you just said that "Whether evolution, the theory, turns out to be correct in ALL predictions is irrelevant" - which means the same goes for creationism.
Besides, what known fact contradicts creationism? Perhaps certain versions of creationism have been countered, but certainly nothing has shown God didn't create the universe.
posted
And I would take issue with Creationism not fitting the known facts about the earth.
After all, I know from the Book of Genesis that God created the animals and people. And, lo! Animals and people abound even today! That's a fact.
Actually, I believe in evolution as a process. I agree that a science course is incomplete with instruction on evolution.
It's evolution as an ideology that I have a problem with, especially evolution as an exclusive ideology. How is it different from religion then?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for funsies, this is a copy of a post I made on hatrack a loooong time ago, and I saved on my hard drive because it took me so darn much time to do the research I couldn't bear just losing it.
I find it interesting that evolutionists point out belief in God as faith, but evolution is “science.” Belief in evolution requires an enormous leap of faith.
Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the odds that a single bacterium could be spontaneously generated as 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. (cited in Nature, Nov. 12, 1981 p.105)
The Yale physicist Harold Morowitz calculated the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary as 1 chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Note that both of these numbers assume the basic building blocks were already in place and don't address where they came from.
The odds of the basic building blocks spontaneously forming are incalculable. Likewise, the odds that the single bacterium formed would then evolve into a fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, intelligent man are also incalculable.
Why is belief in something as unlikely as evolution by random mutation considered less fanciful than belief in God?
I’ve never seen atheistic evolutionists address the issue of probability in regards to evolution. They respond by either begging the question (“Well, we’re here aren’t we? So it must have happened, don’t bother me with details such as how or why.”), or they throw the time issue at you (“Six billion years is a long time, so there was plenty of time for these random mutations to produce life.”)
Okay, leaving aside evidence against the 6 billion year time frame let’s assume the Earth really has been here that long. I still come back to: What are the odds? I give you one more calculation – James F. Coppedge in the book Evolution: Possible or Impossible? states that the probability of the smallest theoretical cell of 239 proteins evolving without the needed 124 different types of proteins to make up a living cell in over 500 billion years as one chance in 10 to the 119,701 power. Coppedge is assuming a time frame 83 times longer than the 6 billion years, and the chances are still infinitesimally remote that only one cell would evolve! Much less the multicellular complexity of life on Earth.
I find this much more difficult to swallow than the concept of a divine Creator.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution has nothing to do with how originated. Those are two separate things. And...
quote: I’ve never seen atheistic evolutionists address the issue of probability in regards to evolution. They respond by either begging the question (“Well, we’re here aren’t we? So it must have happened, don’t bother me with details such as how or why.”), or they throw the time issue at you (“Six billion years is a long time, so there was plenty of time for these random mutations to produce life.”)
Well, how would you want someone to answer that? Yes, the probability is miniscule, but so is the probability for many things. As an example, I had a friend who was killed in a car accident when someone came over from the other side of the highway and smashed into her. What was the probability that she would be in that exact spot? I would imagine very small. But still IT HAPPENED. It's a proven fact that through natural selection a species will change over time. Given a lot of time, those changes could be great. But that has nothing to do with creating life in the beginning.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I'm an advocate of the "separate magesteria" argument.
It basically says that science and God are not incompatible. How it arrives at that conclusion, you may not like. But it basically divides human concerns into "soul things" and "science things" and allows for both to coexist.
The other possibile reconciliation I see is that God used evolution as a means to bring life to his creation.
I don't really see it as possible that Evolution isn't true in the broad strokes. It's possible that the age of the earth could be a problem for gradualism in evolution, but there's already a well supported theory known as punctuated equilibrium to handle "rapid bursts" of speciation. And it works well within an evolutionary framework.
See, most of the objections to evolutionary thought seem to be based on antiquated notions of the science of evolution. This is one of them.
On the creationism side, the mere fact of dinosaur fossils rules out the theory as incomplete and impossible. Unless we're just missing a book just prior to Genesis, or we've been lied to.
I prefer to believe the facts that dinosaurs existed and that they are millions of years long dead rather than try to twist that fact into submission to a bible-based literalist account of creation.
Remember, the biblical account was written for shepards a few thousand years ago. They didn't know about science, let alone earth science. They had only the observable and very few tools with which to study God's creation beyond the surface-level of their own experience.
Whether it was written FOR them or BY them, of course the account they ended up with is limited.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Belle, you're missing a couple things here.
Edit: Rappin' Ronnie beat me to one of them, but I'm not gonna delete it.
First, evolution doesn't necessarily mean a belief that life was spontaneously created from nothingness.
Evolution means a biological change over time, wherein living organisms adapt to their environment over many generations due to a process of natural selection when less fit members of the species fail to reproduce or are seen as less desireable mates.
So, for instance, humans have evolved in the past several hundred years in that we are taller on average, as a basic example. Taller people were seen as more desireable mates more often than not, and the average went up. It stands to reason that if shorter people were more desireable, our average height would be lower.
This happens in the animal kingdom all the time. Evolution of species is a fact.
Now, you're refuting the evolution of something from base proteins. That's different.
The person who says homo sapien evolved from homo erectus does not have to also say the first bacteria emerged from the primordial ooze from base proteins.
We've followed the evolutionary tree back farther and farther, and it is now a question of where the root of all these branches can be found.
In fact, it is not wholly out of the realm of possibility for someone to believe that God created the first bacterium, and then disappeared.
...
That said, let's take a look at your odds. The odds of rolling a one on a six sided die is 1 in 6. If I roll again, the odds are still 1 in 6. And again, the odds are still 1 in 6. But, the odds that over those three rolls I'll have rolled a 1 are greater than 1 in 6. It stands to reason, that if I rolled the die six times, I would likely have rolled a one by then.
In fact, it becomes highly improbable that if I roll the die repeatedly that I will *not* roll a one. Say I roll it 10,000 times... I'm almost guaranteed to roll a one at some point.
Now, taken your numbers. The odds that life spontaneously formed are very, very low. But how many spontaneous instances have there been in 6 million years? There are 3.07 x 10^7 seconds in one year. There are therefore about 3 x 10^13 seconds in 6 million years.
Given that your lowest odds are 1 in 1 x 10^11 of spontaneous creation, that's almost like saying the odds of rolling a 1 if you roll a six sided die 600 times. I'd take those odds.
And that's only counting seconds.
Now, I know this is all gross manipulation of numbers. But so was what you were doing. I could also have said that the odds of winning the Big Game are ridiculously low, but someone invariably wins it. As Will Rogers put it so aptly, there's a lie, a dirty lie, and a statistic. Numbers can be used to say what you want them to say.
It's hard to believe that someone could be struck by lightning six times, until you meet someone who was. Then you accept it. It's hard to believe that the world was created from a pool of muck, but we live. So I accept it.
Just as you accept creationism as your explanation. It's amazing how so many people take so much of their religion on faith alone, then get so angry that someone else could possibly believe a different explanation.
quote:On the creationism side, the mere fact of dinosaur fossils rules out the theory as incomplete and impossible.
This isn't true. For one thing, God could have put the fossils there when he created the earth. For another thing, God may have not created the earth in the exact way the Bible said. These are certainly compatible with creationism, and every creationist I've known has had some sort of explanation for the fossils.
Science has always allowed the possiblity that good theories could be incomplete or require further explanations to be acceptable. Why would it not be the case for creationism?
posted
And I think it's important to understand the concept of a "fatal flaw" in a scientific theory versus just a "flaw."
A fatal flaw is something like the proven existence of dinosaurs when the theory doesn't have a good explanation for it.
That requires tossing out the theory or tweaking it so that in it's new variation, it fits the facts.
There is NONE of that with Creationism. The account was written once. It is either demonstrably true or false for all time.
Now, some people have attempted (even very intelligently) to turn Creationism into a scientific theory. Creation Science is one attempt. Another is the "Intelligent Design" theory.
They deal better with some ugly little facts (like age of the earth and prior life forms no longer extant) but they have one other flaw. Scientists do tend to gravitate towards the simplest possible explanation. And they do try to avoid the "God did it" explanation because that is essentially throwing in the towel and saying "no further study is possible or necessary."
That is a bias in science. A necessary one. Otherwise, we would all just stop studying the world. The ultimate explanation for every phenomenon would be God's miraculous presence.
A simpler explanation is possible. One that doesn't rely on miracles. In the case of life on earth, it is evolution.
The origins of that life are obscure, but the method by which we have all that we have in terms of life is pretty well documented. It is an evolutionary process. It does take time, but not nearly the amount of time that nay-sayers continue to think the theory DEMANDS that it take.
That doesn't mean that there aren't more things to explain. Like if a member of a new species is born from an old species, who does it mate with? Are we proposing TWO at a time get evolved? Ha! And if most mutations are fatal, can we really believe that genes are the mechanism of anything but stability of species?
Turns out, there are issues to resolve there. The explanations are more technical than we have space for, but it turns out that the real answer to your questions about turning one species into another are resolvable. The theory has to be modified, but it works.
For example, natural selection (the mechanism of evolution), works within species to weed out uncompetitive variants. So if there is, within the natural variability of a species, a competitive advantage to having some feature or not having some other, then those critters will survive to breed and their offspring will also survive to breed, etc. Until environmental contingencies change.
When the environmental contingencies are wide open (as when a habitat is empty of competing species), this will actually shut off the weeding-out part of natural selection. Instead, what you have is radiation. Species split into a bunch of different varieties that fill available niches, and then are selected for their fit to that niche.
And that can give rise to radical variation.
You can get a mammalian form from a non-mammalian form by having cycles of adaptive radiation and competition. In fact, it would destroy the theory if there WEREN'T such things.
posted
Tresopax, I call your attention to the 2nd sentence in that partial quote of mine:
quote:On the creationism side, the mere fact of dinosaur fossils rules out the theory as incomplete and impossible. Unless we're just missing a book just prior to Genesis, or we've been lied to.
while I doubt most Creationists would like my characterization, that is exactly what it amounts to:
"Well God never said He told us EVERYTHING."
To which my answer is:
Well you just said the Bible was the TRUTH. If it's only a partial truth, then I'll just be on my merry way. Thanks for clearing that up.
quote:And I think it's important to understand the concept of a "fatal flaw" in a scientific theory versus just a "flaw."
A fatal flaw is something like the proven existence of dinosaurs when the theory doesn't have a good explanation for it.
That requires tossing out the theory or tweaking it so that in it's new variation, it fits the facts.
There is NONE of that with Creationism. The account was written once. It is either demonstrably true or false for all time.
Well, again, why are you claiming Creationism can't be tweaked? That seems terribly unfair when evolutionary theory is tweaked all the time.
I mean, the part that would imply dinosaur fossils shouldn't exist is a fairly small detail of the main theory. The main thrust of the theory - that God created the universe - isn't touched by that evidence.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the creationism side, the mere fact of dinosaur fossils rules out the theory as incomplete and impossible. Unless we're just missing a book just prior to Genesis, or we've been lied to.
How so? I see no conflict.
Punctuated equilibrium? Bob, that's the hopeful monster theory.
It's absurd. It's basically the belief that a dinosaur egg hatched one day and there was a bird inside. This theory came about because adequate transitional forms couldn't be found. (Don't bother throwing Archaeopteryx I've read scores on the subject, and if it's the crown jewel of transitional forms it only shows how few examples there really are. No, I don't believe it's a fake, I just believe it's proof of nothing.)
If you think most creationism theories are based on outdated theories of evolution you must not have been doing any recent reading into the subject. Yes, there are a lot of people who hold on to examples to "prove" creationism that have been proven wrong. There are also a lot of people who hold on to the evolutionary model of the horse and Haeckels drawings as "proof" of evolution when both have been proven false.
I know this subject. Not intimately, because I lack the scientific background to understand a lot of it (Behe's book Darwin's Black Box written to show how irreducible complexity is an issue evolutionists can't resolve is so far above me even after several readings I don't know everything he's saying. But, Behe's a molecular physicist and I'm not.)
As much as a layman can, I know this subject. I know the arguments from both sides, I read literature written by both sides, not just "biased" Christian views.
I don't have all the answers. I never will. I don't understand God completely, and I don't have to because my belief in him is based on faith, not what can be "proven." So, there are issues with evolution that I can't explain or don't have an answer for or don't have the education to understand.
I accept that I don't know everything. Evolutionists generally though, insist their version is a fact and the only fact. I take exception to that, their theory is unprovable, highly unlikely, and changes all the time whenever they discover something "new". It's not science - it's a belief system based on something that is impossible to reproduce and study.
quote:I had a friend who was killed in a car accident when someone came over from the other side of the highway and smashed into her. What was the probability that she would be in that exact spot? I would imagine very small. But still IT HAPPENED
I'm not a mathematician, I can't calculate odds. But I'm sure if someone did, it would be much lower than the odds we're talking about.
See, cars exist. Traffic exists, people travel interstates. Accidents happen. The average person has a car accident every seven years. It's a pretty common event.
You're relying on the fact that you are specifying a certain person in this - what are the odds she would have been in that exact place? Not very high. But what are the odds she would die someday? 100%. What are the odds she would die in a traffic accident? Not sure, but certainly it's pretty probable, given the number of accidents that happen daily.
You can't compare this to the odds of something spontaneously forming from nothing.
I'm sorry about your friend, by the way. I know how hard it is to lose people unexpectedly.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well you just said the Bible was the TRUTH. If it's only a partial truth, then I'll just be on my merry way.
I believe the Bible is only partial truth - what's wrong with that? I believe my science textbook contains only part of the truth too - doesn't mean I'm going to go walk away from that. The assumption that books or accounts are useless if they are fallible is not one I think many people are willing to make.
Creationism isn't an all or nothing theory - at least, not all versions of it. Perhaps a certain extreme version of it, but the same is true for extreme versions of many scientific theories.
posted
Tres: my dictionary can convey to me the difference between a scientific theory and the generic use of the word theory.
God creating the universe? if someone wants to believe that, fine by me. However, its certainly not a scientific theory of any sort, and as such should not be taught in science class. plain and simple. Show me a scientific theory of god creation and I'll support its inclusion in science class, same as with creationism.
You're quite right that evolutionary theory shouldn't be taught as an ideology, Sachiko. However, that evolution happens should be taught as a fact, where by evolution what we mean is the change of genetic makeup in populations due to selective pressures: this has been observed repeatedly, several times so extreme (given how short a span of time we've been around to observe) that it has resulted in speciation. Yes, speciation has been repeatedly observerd. There is no reason to doubt speciation any more than there is reason to doubt gravitation.
RRR is quite right, the idea of how life came to be on this earth is completely separate from the idea of evolution. They often draw on similar modes of analysis for support, but evolution happens even if goddidit.
Interesting belief, Belle, considering the introduction of new genes to a population has happened observably and regularly. Its a standard exercise in high school and college biology, even, to insert new genes into a species.
The odds of creation have nothing to do with the odds of natural selection. Particularly as the odds of natural selection having happened are 100%, we having seen it in action. Also, the fossil record ridiculously greatly supports the idea of gradual change from one species to the another -- there is only one "creationist" theory that even vaguely agrees with the fossil record, the ID theory based on a God of small changes.
Once you have any life at all, selection is no longer random. Have you browsed through the site http://www.talkorigins.org/ ? They dissect, in detail, the probability arguments.
In particular, the probability arguments all have one fatal flaw: they're complete speculation. They all say "well, if we assume . . ." That's the thing, theories of abiogenesis (which this properly is, and even if God did create the first life it has no bearing on the correctness of evolutionary theory, only on the correctness of abiogenesis) do not have such definite assumptions. Every probability argument against abiogenesis I've seen has taken the vaguest parts of abiogenesis that are least understood -- and chosen to interpret them in the least favorable way. This is scientifically dishonest; the theories of abiogenesis are vague in those areas because we do not know, and assuming they do know which assumptions can be made is deceptive at best on the part of the "scientists" who purport to disprove abiogenesis.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as dinosaurs go - I'm sure you'll what to know what I think.
I think God created them, just like he created everything else. I think they are no longer here.
If you say dinosaurs prove creationism false because the Bible doesn't mention them, then you'd have to say the same about the thousands of animals and plants the Bible doesn't mention.
"Oh, the Bible can't be true - it never says that there are such things as lobsters."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science or "natural philosophy" began on the premise that God created the earth; how did He do it? Hence, the study of genetics, chemistry, etc. Science began as "a soul thing".
Bob, you seem very dismissive of the Bible as something "written for shephards" by people who had few scientific resources. By my belief, the Bible was written by people who talked to God. I think God's a pretty good source.
You can't seperate the issue into "science things" and "soul things" if the science thing, by its very nature, obviates the "soul thing". The attitude here seems to be, "You can believe whatever you want, as long as you agree that this is the real truth." When evolution is the basis for secular materialist thought, it has become a "soul thing".
The hostility towards the idea of a Prime Mover ia a good example of science becoming a religion. Apparently, not only is there NO God, there's no need for or desire for God. And if He does exist, he probably knew better than to mess with the creation of the world by evolution. That seems to be the thought I've recieved from exclusionary evolitionists.
I'd like to point out that, while you would take your children out of school if Creationism was mentioned, those who disagree with evolution are obligated to leave their children in school and to have their children study something they disagree with.
posted
Belle, if you really have read tons on the subject, why did you choose not to tell us that your source #1, Frederick Hoyle, was himself quite opposed to creationism? Have you never come across his conviction that life on earth goes back to aliens (alien viruses, that is)?
Then again, he also thought that insects may be quite intelligent--while smartly hiding this fact from us dull humans...
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting belief, Belle, considering the introduction of new genes to a population has happened observably and regularly. Its a standard exercise in high school and college biology, even, to insert new genes into a species.
You mean we've changed genetic codes of animals? Really! Wow! So, an intelligent designer can make changes in a species! Well that rules out creationism then, because creationism believes in intelligent design....oh wait.
Sure we can make changes to a species. We've manipulated poor Drusilla the fruit fly so many ways it's a wonder the species even knows what it is anymore.
Strangely, though, we've given Drusilla new wings, changed the hair on its body, given it new eyes, and taken things away from it by manipulating its genes....and it's still a fruit fly.
Not only that, you're hard pressed to say that any changes we've made have been beneficial. Evolution relies on beneficial mutations taking place. Very few examples of true beneficial random mutations can be shown. And evolution relies on billions of those taking place randomly and simultaneously and in an orderly manner. What use are feathers to a bird if its bones are too heavy for it to fly?
What use are hollow bones to a creature without wings? What small, random series of individual changes could lead from a Tyrannosaurs Rex to a sparrow? Do you even comprehend how many small changes we're talking about? And in each step, the change would have to be beneficial so that the trait survives. Not only that, it would have to occur in more than one animal if the animals reproduce sexually.
Most mutations result in death for an animal. My wolves from the previous example, if they suddenly mutated a gene that allowed for green fur - would it get passed on? Of course not.
That's where hopeful monster came from. It's too unlikely that small mutational changes over time made the drastic changes in species that are supposed to have occurred. So,a lot of evolutionists began to say it occurred all at once, Stephen Jay Gould among them. So, instead of small incremental changes it all happened at once? That makes it even LESS likely.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Punctuated equilibrium? Bob, that's the hopeful monster theory.
It's absurd. It's basically the belief that a dinosaur egg hatched one day and there was a bird inside. This theory came about because adequate transitional forms couldn't be found. (Don't bother throwing Archaeopteryx I've read scores on the subject, and if it's the crown jewel of transitional forms it only shows how few examples there really are. No, I don't believe it's a fake, I just believe it's proof of nothing.)
Belle, that's not punctuated equilibrium.
I don't know where you've been getting your science, but I'd suggest reading the original sources.
Punctuated equilibrium does explain the lack of transitional forms, but it doesn't propose that major changes in forms happened instantaneously and in one event. That's the worst sort of lampooning.
As for dinosauria, the problem with them is that the creation account talks about God populating the earth with current forms and giving Adam the job of naming them. It specifically doesn't talk about forms that existed 65 million years ago, long before Adam was created.
And that is a problem for the creation account because it means that the entire sequence is off by millions of years and that man was given dominion over something he merely inherited from a long line of other dominant creations.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:there's already a well supported theory known as punctuated equilibrium to handle "rapid bursts" of speciation.
I can't find them now, but when X-Men 2 came out there were several articles now about how the movie misrepresented the punctuated equilibrium theories. It had a good explanation of the theory and the supporting evidence, as well as an outline of the fairly considerable objections to it amongst the evolution scientific community. The articles didn't give me enough to make a decision about it one way or the other.
posted
I favor forcing kids to understand uniformitarianism before they understand evolution. That is the real secular part of it, and it's kind of boring.
Uniformitarianism is the principle that all change can only be explained in terms of events that are as likely to continue occuring as they have in the past. Thus no Fall, no Flood. But Earth crossing Asteroids are okay. I actually think they aren't. Reversal of the magnetic poles is much more likely than an asteroid to have killed the dinosaurs. Except for the ones that defy Darwin's principle of variation. (Crocs, Sharks)
Anyway, I teach my kids about evolution so that it's not this big rebellious idea. I'll teach them about communism and homosexuality eventually too. Of course, what I'll teach them is that America is a free country and people can do what they like, even if we don't agree with it. Formost, I will teach them that Academia is not the font of ultimate truth, but a forum for debate and a source of income for the participants.
posted
I really didn't want to spend the rest of my day digging quotes out of books. Guess I'm gonna have to. *sigh*
Dinosaurs are no problem for creationists. The animals Adam named were placed in the garden by God, before the fall. Once sin and death entered the world, so did entropy.
The animals we have today are not supposed to be the ones Adam named. They've changed through the years, no one denies that. What I deny is that they can change form.
Dating is another issue in itself and books and books have been written about it and I'm not a scientist so I can't say. All I know is that there are scores of reasons why the generally accepted 6 billion years may not be correct. Behe does a good job of explaining the flaws in radiometric dating, you'd be better off reading his book than expecting me to explain it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Show me a scientific theory of god creation and I'll support its inclusion in science class, same as with creationism.
Oh, scientific? That's another matter. I suppose it's pretty difficult to experiment on God, so it probably wouldn't belong in a science class. It might belong in a history class, though, as historical theories aren't testable.
(edit: Actually, along those lines, what is Evolution [as a theory about the origin of the universe] doing in science class? You can't test the beginning of time either. You can make speculations based on current evidence that seem to fit the data, but that's not really scientific at all. That belongs in history class too.)
The real question at hand, I supppose, is whether evolution should be taught as fact when it might not be true and when many many Americans believe it is not. And if not, should we explain why not? Should we get into alternative theories (scientific or not) that are commonly accepted and offer alternative explanations to the same evidence? Or, like this school district, perhaps we shouldn't even touch on the subject at all.
Hey, maybe we should just ban science class altogether! Or perhaps all school - after all, any given fact taught in class might conflict with some person's religious theory.
posted
Belle, your descriptions of evolutionary theory have demonstrated quite clearly to me that you have essentially no understanding of modern evolutionary theory. This is not an insult, merely an observation and a suggestion you would do well to actually read some papers on evolution instead of on distorted views of evolution by people who likewise don't understand it.
Punctuated equilibrium, for instance, says nothing at all like what you are suggesting. It merely says that the rate of change in a population will largely be low and constant until evolutionary pressures (changes in the environment and such) accumulate to a point where there's a chain reaction of sorts and a large number of changes occur in a relatively small period of time -- just a few hundred thousand years, perhaps. Considering we've seen new species occur in the incredibly small amount of time we've been actively observing, the idea of much larger changes over the course of a hundred thousand years (over a thousand times as long) resulting in new genus is hardly revolutionary. The extension of that to a new class in a few hundreds of millions of years (the timespan for the rise of the birds, roughly) isn't that hard, either, and is hardly the idea of a dinosaur birthing a bird.
Punctuated equilibrium merely suggests that instead of this happening in a relatively constant way, there were period of relatively little change followed by periods of much greater change. If you had actually read any papers on punctuated equilibrium as applied to avian evolution, you would understand theorists estimate there were hundreds or even thousands of periods of equilibrium and rapid change between dinosaurs and birds.
This great misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium and other notions (equating abiogenesis and evolution, for instance) leads me to strongly suggest you need to read much more evolutionary before you can assert a good lay understanding of it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
But there isn't a one out there that is so far off that we'd end up with the possibility of an earth that's 12,000 years old and has all the evolutionary events compressed into a timeframe since the advent of man.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, there you go on the sharks and crocs again. I explained to you earlier how those fit into evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory only asserts that things change due to environmental pressures. Well adapted creatures thus change very little. Sharks and crocs are well adapted.
Behe has been thoroughly debunked on just about every issue, Belle, as well as being shown to have repeatedly used bad methodology (one of my favorite demonstrations was in his use of college textbook's indicies to suggest college textbook authors didn't consider evolution important -- anyone actually reading the texts would find numerous references to evolution despite it not being mentioned in the indices). See here for a good piece that goes over why the earth is really, really old, and why common creationist "counterarguments" don't make any sense: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.htmlPosts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
