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".

Just a suggestion.
posted by Alton Brown

---

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 by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
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.

(edited for syntactical purity )

[ January 31, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
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.

[ January 31, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 


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.

(edited for grammer)

[ January 31, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

(edited for grammer)

---

*snort*

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.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You're not very good at this devil's advocate thing, Tres. All your objections can be resolved with a dictionary.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
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.

[ January 31, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
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.

---

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.

[ January 31, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
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.”)

---

quote:

---

On the creationism side, the mere fact of dinosaur fossils rules out the theory as incomplete and impossible.

---

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.


 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.)

---

quote:

---

there's already a well supported theory known as punctuated equilibrium to handle "rapid bursts" of speciation.

---

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.

[ January 31, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Belle, don't bother.

I know that dating techniques are questionable.

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.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
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.html
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I know it's from an Indiana Jones movie, but science is the search for fact, not truth. The trouble is when you get these teenagers hearing about it for the first time, and they are used to getting all information as invariable truth. (especially if the stereotypes of this school district are correct.) But black and white thinking seldom leads to moral living. The world is gray (due to the effects of the Fall).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh,and pooka, asteroids hit the earth all the time. Furthermore, we know the approximate relative densities of various sizes of asteroids from observation: most are quite small, just as the ones we see hitting the earth all the time. A very few, comparatively, are quite big. Are we to assume that merely because an asteroid is big means it will never hit the earth despite small asteroids clearly having no impediment?

In particular, I'd like to know what you think the cutoff size is when a big asteroid becomes unable to hit the earth.

Please people, think about something before you assert it!

[ January 31, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Well, I'm all for teaching several different theories.

Basic tenets in science, over time, often change or are done away with altogether. As far as I can tell, the real constants in science over the centuries have been
1. a desire to learn more, and
2. challenging what is already accepted as fact.

So...why not challenge evolution? Is evolution sacred? And challenge Creationism, too, and make the students think.

I want my children's science education to be based on the ability to think critically. And that may include thinking critically of either theory. If evolution is true, then it can withstand the challenge of Creationism, right?

And I think Creationism deserves mention, since so many believe that to be the truth.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Evolutionary theories are challenged all the time. The existence of evolution isn't, because it is a fact.

Also, there are huge numbers of people who believe in ghosts. There are huge numbers of people who believe we've found WMDs in Iraq. There are huge numbers of people who think Kansas City is in Kansas. Should we teach all these things?

[ January 31, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I do not think that evolution should be taught as fact, any more than any other scientific theory should be taught as fact. That would imply we know everything we need to know about it.
Instead, we have theories, which have been modified as new evidence arose until the latest versions fit all the known evidence. Evolutionary theory has changed quite a bit over the years, no reaosn to think we're done yet.

I also have no problem discussing different theories as to the "why" of creation. Some people believe in intelligent design, some believe in random chance, etc.

But any discussion of specifics in creationism, such as Who did and How, that belongs in Humanities, Comparative Religion or Philosophy. Not in science class. If it can't be tested, it doesn't belong there.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I love how personal attack always becomes an issue when I have already stated I am not a scientist. You say it's not an insult, but you are essentially saying "You aren't smart enough to understand this so shut up."

I'm not so stupid as to not be able to see when something doesn't make sense.

Behe has been debunked by some people and upheld by others. Show me any scientific theory that can't be both supported and refuted, depending on who you ask. Look at the field of medicine, depending on who you talk to endometriosis is either caused by tissue migration or it's a genetic problem with the immune system that causes it. There are millions of other examples. the fact that Behe has been refuted by some doesn't upset or surprise me. I expect it.

I don't read strictly creationist sources. I already said that. I read Behe because he wasn't a creationist. He had no religious agenda when he wrote the book.

I compared hopeful monster with punctuated equilibrium because they are two sides of the same coin. Both say major changes occurred quickly with no evidence of transitional forms.

quote:

---

The hopeful monster theory would have joined the "recapitulation theory" in the scrap heap of abandoned evolutionary speculations, were it not for Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge. In 1972, these influential evolutionists resurrected the long-discredited hopeful monster theory and gave it a more respectable name -- "punctuated equilibrium." This theory speculates that the intermediate stages in the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because these transitional organisms were short-lived, extremely unstable species which, as luck would have it, quickly evolved into stable species. Thus, the evolution of any organism is characterized by long periods of equilibrium (no evolutionary change) during which time many offspring, and thus many fossils, are produced -- punctuated by relatively rapid bursts of evolution that left no fossil record. In the May 1981 issue of Discover magazine, Gould explained that "two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically sudden origin of new species and failure to change thereafter" actually "predicted" this new evolutionary theory!

Many of the arguments that Eldredge and Gould have used to refute the beliefs of classical Darwinists sound like they are actually trying to support special creation, but this is hardly their intent. For example, in his regular column in Natural History magazine (May 1977 pp. 12-16), Gould chided the gradual evolutionists for appealing to the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record in an effort to explain the missing links. He countered that even if we were to grant this "traditional escape," it still would not answer the biggest question -- the viability of the transitional forms themselves. Gould pointed out that it is difficult to even imagine how transitional animals passing through the intermediate stages of evolution would be benefited or even survive. He asked:

"Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"

Now that's a good question: One only needs to imagine a mouse-like creature slowly transforming into a bat to appreciate what Gould is saying. The reader may well ask at this point, of what use is evolutionary speculation itself -- and why is it being taught as a "fact" in our schools?

Originally published in St. Louis MetroVoice, June 1994, Vol. 4, No. 6

---

quote:

---

. Not in science class. If it can't be tested, it doesn't belong there

---

quote:

---

Not in science class. If it can't be tested, it doesn't belong there.

Time to quit teaching macroevolution then. Because no one can prove that are demonstrable and reproducible tests of microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. And since macroevolution can't be observed or tested, it better go out of the curriculum too.

---

quote:

---

You say it's not an insult, but you are essentially saying "You aren't smart enough to understand this so shut up."

---

quote:

---

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”

Gould in Discover May 1981 issue emphasis mine

---

quote:

---

Tell them there are alternate theories including intelligent design.

---

Belle, even with the flaws in evolution theory, what scientific support is there for intelligent design?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Microevolution and macroevolution aren't different things. Its a false attempt to apply qualitative differences to what are purely descriptions of scale in the literature.

Evolutionary theory doesn't make a qualitative distinction between the two because such a distinction doesn't make sense. It may look like there's a huge difference between the two, but its just that -- looks. The genetics is the same. One is a small number of changes, the other is a large number of changes -- its just more changes, of the same type of changes that we have both regularly observed in nature and can recreate in the lab.

And then there's transitional fossils. First, there's no such thing in transitional fossils in the sense most creationists mean it. They want forms that lie "in between" for everything. Simple fact of the matter is, fossilization is rare. Also, evolutionary changes are a progression, not a series of steps, and populations are not uniform, et cetera. The idea is ridiculous. However, there have been numerous transitional forms found, if by transitional forms one means fossils which have likely fall roughly in between different populations. For instance, we've found several dozen hominid transitional forms. The links below have numerous other examples.

Belle, if you have such a good understanding of evolutionary theory why do you keep misrepresenting what it asserts? Take a read through these: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

I highly suggest the following pages as being particularly relevant to many of your misconceptions and others in this thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

As for why Behe is intellectually dishonest, see here: http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/coyne.html Notice it specifically is not making a scientific argument, merely pointing one at previous scientific counters to Behe. The paper is about Behe not being intellectually honest, and sticks to its subject.

I think I'll close with a little story.

There once were some parrots on an island. The island had many tall trees with soft berries, and a number of snakes and monkeys that liked to eat these parrots. These parrots were small, and flew well, and had tiny little beaks, and were colored like the trees, even though bright colors still attracted the opposite sex a bit and existed in patches underthroat and such.

One day there was a storm, and a few of the parrots were blown away. They wandered around for a while and found a different island. There weren't many animals at all, and basically no predators on this island. The trees had large fruits with hard pits that contained nutrients the birds needed, that fell regularly to the ground.

Now, in this population of birds, it suddenly became advantageous to be bigger (for more general ability to survive famine), with stronger, larger beaks to break the pits up, and brighter colored to attract mates, and it became less advantageous to be able to fly well, or be small, or such.

Going with, for example, size:

The birds originally ranged, in roughly standard distribution, from size "1" to size "4". After a few years they ranged, in a distorted standard distribution, from size "2.5" to size "6". Many years later they ranged from size "6" to size "8" (much larger and they weren't able to effectively navigate). At this point they were unable to interbreed with the original population of birds -- yet, at any given point, any taxonomist would have called all the birds on this island one species. And this of course happened with all the various characteristics to varying degrees.

Of course, did I fail to mention that the size change remined stuck for a number of years with an upper limit of size "6"? How sorry I am. I should have mentioned the mutation, such as we have regularly observed in the wild and induced in the lab, that caused the a gene to be changed into a new gene, producing a new enzyme which was a great catalyst to the production of a growth hormone while in the egg. How could I have neglected to mention this change? Perhaps it is because such changes happen all the time both around us and in our own bodies, and that we have grown to accept them as so normal that we forget how much of an impact they can have.

(and of course, the few years mentioned above for the first period of size change are a few decades, and the total span of time a few hundred years at minimum, possibly even a few thousand)

Of course, the original population of birds on the first island is still doing quite well. It hasn't changed much, because there are no strong pressures to change.

Hopefully it is now understood better why species, transitional form, micro and macro evolution, et cetera, are not all that meaningful, and must be considered carefully. Also, hopefully some people now understand much better how evolutionary theory actually works.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
I've noticed that adherence to evolution seems to be a litmus test for the intellectual elite, and those who disagree with them have "earned" the right to be called (politely) ignorant or (less politely) stupid. Or backwards, or a country bumpkin.

Just sayin'.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I've been on talkorigins many times and still check there. Again, you are patronizing me, attempting to assert I am uninformed.

Again, I've told you that Behe has been debunked and I'm aware of it and I've read it. And I've already told you that other scientists have upheld his writings. The fact that some people think he's dishonest doesn't mean he cannot be correct in some or all of what he says. Like as not, everything in his book is NOT correct, but that doesn't mean he can be completely dismissed. He's offering his opinions, same as Gould is.

And you assertion that evolutionary theory works better is only if one doesn't accept there is a God. I do, so evolutionary theory is laughable to me.

What scientific evidence is there that intelligent design exists? There is none. That's why I proposed it be taught as a theory. Intelligent design can't be proven, so it should not be taught as a fact.

Evolution can't be proven, and yet it is taught as a fact. That's the problem.

I have read and studied this issue for years. It's been a hobby of mine ever since I had my own beliefs on evolution challenged by someone. That person caused me to think by bringing up a bunch of flaws and contradictions in the evolutionary theory. Here I was, in college, and taking a college biology course that didn't even teach evolution so much as it just asserted that evolution was a known fact. I had never questioned it.

I began questioning it and I'm here 10 years later. No, more like 12 with my beliefs.

Quit belittling me and suggesting I go read something else, and telling me that my beliefs don't jive with current theory. Course they don't, because my beliefs are based partly on my faith and will never be compatible with science.

Yet, evolutionary theory is also based on faith. That some things happened that we can't prove, so we just have to believe it did. That's faith, not science.

What is faith if not belief in the unprovable?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, that all we think we know about the past progression of evolution is a fact is false; evolution is a fact in the same way gravity is a fact -- we have documentable instances of it. Doesn't mean it isn't so that in the past there was no gravity.

And you are misrepresenting Gould. For instance, suggesting punctuated equilibrium says anything like that birds could come out of dinosaur's eggs. At any given time the population in question would be a single species, just as in my bird example. However, if one had a secondary, relatively invariant population that was originally of the same species as the primary population that became birds, it would be seen that over time the primary population became less and less like the secondary population. Never, though, would one species be birthed from another, and nowhere in any part of punctuated equilibrium does it sugggest this. It is qualitatively different from the "hopeful monster" theory, not merely a matter of scale.

Its worth noting that punctuated equilibrium is the subject of considerable debate among evolutionary theorists. Most feel that periods of rapid change were already considered and predicted correctly by standard evolutionary theory, simply due to the tendency for there to be relatively little pressure on a population, and that punctuated equilibrium does not adequately account for smaller pressures resulting in long term gradual change.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I've brought this objection up quite a few times, often specifically aimed at Belle, and I've yet to see any result. Maybe if I state it more forcefully.

The Bible is quite clear on the creation of the world. I submit that it is impossible to logically believe in the Biblical stories of creation as fact and have an ounce of intellectual integrity in regards to the matter. Quite frankly, I think biblical creationists should be dealt with in school with the ridicule they deserve, as ignorant, self-deluders who are willing to twist and ignore the source they consider so sacred. They don't get creationism from the Bible, they get it from their own need for certainty and then twist the Bible to support their claims.

There are two accounts of creation in Genesis which are logically mutally exclusive. The garden of eden story has god creating man into a created world that is as yet unpopulated by animals. Animals are created after man to be companions to him. In the seven day story of creation it is equally clear that animals are created prior to man, that man is the last creature created.

Incidently, claimed that there is no support for macro-evolution is also incorrect. The work tracing the development of whales have found what many scientists believe to be transitional animals between land mammal creatures to water using mammals to semi-amphibious mammals to full sea mammal proto-whales. Poof, it's macro-evolution baby, unless you're willing to say that the change from a wolf-sized land mammal to a whale sized sea mammal is covered in micro-evolution.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
If you were to read that stuff on Behe I pointed you at it would demonstrate to you how he has been shown to deliberately misquote people. Its about integrity, not science, as I pointed out when I directed you to the quote.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I think the asteroid extinction theory persists because the magnetic fluctuation theory is a bit more frightening. An asteroid of various sizes may or may not hit the earth, but there is a chance if it does that our misery will end rather quickly.

The recent Nova on it was quite funny. They said an upside to the abscence of magnetospheric protection is that you wouldn't have to be as far north to see the aurora borealis. And no, I don't get all my science from Nova .
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

What scientific evidence is there that intelligent design exists? There is none. That's why I proposed it be taught as a theory. Intelligent design can't be proven, so it should not be taught as a fact.

---

I think the problem here lies in the fact that there is no evidence for intelligent design. If there is no evidence for something, then you can't logically place it alongside something for which there is evidence, even if that evidence has problems. You can't call it a theory. You can't call it anything other than an opinion, can you? And what place do opinions have in science?

The problem, Belle, is that you haven't refuted evolution, you're merely engaging in looking for holes in the evolutionary theory. I think that's fine and to be commended. However, even if you refute evolutionary theory, with NO empirical evidence of intelligent design,you can't say that intelligent design has, therefore, been proven, or has evidence, and that it should be taught in a scientific setting.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
I find it funny that young-earth creationists believe the only obstacle standing between them and scientific legitimacy is evolution. In fact, all of our most basic theories of astrophysics contradict their position as well.

Without the hot Big Bang model, there is no known way to apply the (very well-confirmed) theory of relativity to the system of galaxies. And the Big Bang entails that the universe is at least 10 billion years old.

Unless the universe is very old, there is no way to explain the fact that the galactic core is constituted mainly of Population II stars, which are much later in the process of fusion than our own sun. These stars have nearly run themselves down -- their hydrogen fuel is almost used up. How could that be unless they've had billions of years to burn it?

How do you explain the fact that complex atoms appear in large quantities only in the younger Population I star systems?

It's not just biology that contradicts young-earth creationism, it's all of science.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Evolutionary theory is no more based on faith than the rest of science (note that this does not exclude it being based on faith at all).

It is a very inexact field, simply because there it covers a vast field that has necessarily little data. And yet, it has been possible to assemble a huge array of evidence in favor of it, despite it having these known and acknowledged problems.

I do not think you are ignorant, Belle, but though I know you will assert the same is true of me, I think you are too willing to accept the words of people with agendas as being true. Science is not built on agendas, but on willingness to have theories challenged. If a theory cannot be challenged with evidence, it is not a scientific theory. This, if nothing else, should impress upon you why creationism is not a scientific theory, and should not be taught in the classroom. It is just as hard to challenge as the notion that the world came into existence 5 minutes ago -- impossible. Neither belongs in the science classroom.

[ January 31, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
I actually agree that teaching evolution as a "fact" or as "absolute truth" is dangerous and contrary to scientific thinking. It is a theory after all. However, it is a theory that is supported by trizillions of findings. It is, by a huge margin, the most plausible explanation for the vast majority of these findings. As with most scientific theories, and science in general, there are things that are not well-understood, and maybe never will. This is perfectly normal, and it doesn't much diminish the strength of evolutionary theory. Scientists would be out of their jobs if they ever encountered "absolute truth".

The problem is, kids at school aren't trained in scientific thinking. I certainly would prefer to teach evolution as the currently most supported and prevalent theory. However, I doubt that even many teachers fully grasp the concept. So yes, it is difficult to teach.

However, does this mean we should do away with it completely? Even replace it with a story whose only basis is faith? Are we not guilty then of active participation in the zombification of our kids?

----

Belle, the greatest problem with most of your "scientific" and "PhD" sources is that either their statements ARE taken out of context, or these "scientists" themselves are outside the scientific mainstream. I'm pretty sure when you think "marriage" you're envisioning a concept that is wildly different from what the minority of supporters of same-gender marriages have in mind. Why then do you inisist to take all your views on evolution from a tiny minority of "queer" scientists??

Edit to clarify a somewhat shaky analogy: I'm all supportive of same-gender marriage. "Queer" scientists, however, I find rather intolerable.

[ January 31, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Sal ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I really can't support, as a scientist, FAILING to teach how science works. That is a source of great ignorance in this country.

The fact that it is most obvious in the debate of whether or not Creationism deserves to be added to a science curriculum is just a symptom of the larger problem if ignorance about science.

If high schools are failing to teach how science is done, then, yes, the education needs to be changed.

It bothers me that textbooks are used as the determinant of how the stuff is actually taught. I come from a long, long line of teachers and I have many teachers as friends and colleagues. I assure you that the assertion that the textbook IS the content is completely false and misleading.

I would like it if textbooks were better, but in the absence of that, we have teachers.

Everywhere I've ever looked, except in private schools, teachers have to have some sort of certificate, accredidation and training in the subjects they are called upon to teach. For teachers of biological sciences, that would include a thorough knowledge of evolution. If after going through college and specific training to become an educator, a teacher still does not know how science works, I would be very surprised.

So, in effect, we have to worry about the will of the teacher teach and the capacity of the students to understand how science works. I can see how in some classes of biology it might be possible to decide that the kids could not grasp "how science works" or that, for this particular set of students, such knowledge is less important than knowing how fertilizers work. But to assert that kids are routinely being taught that evolution is truth, fact and unquestioned by all in the scientific community just strikes me as a broad overgeneralization.

Given that, I think this entire argument is moot.

I continue to worry about what I perceive as willful misunderstandings of the methods and practices of science. I find it particularly disturbing among people who want to do anything to the science curriculae in schools.

I also think that it is bizarre in the extreme for a "Superintendent of Schools" who probably knows very little of science to decide what to do about a science curriculum. And I would be protesting in the streets if anyone tried a similar move in my town, where I do pay taxes to support education.

As for the broader argument, I have no problem with people proposing alternative theories to Evolution. And as soon as I find one that accounts for the evidence better and does not use "God" as an explanatory variable, I will adopt it as my favored theory to explain how life on earth came to be as we know it.

I will NEVER adopt a theory that uses God as an explanatory mechanism in a scientific endeavor because that is the antithesis of science overall. It's the same as saying "we figure this is where the miracle happened" and giving up.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in God. It just means that I don't see a comfortable fit for God in scientific theories. The history on this issue has shown us that every time we say "this is where God is" someone later comes along to give a simpler, more mechanistic explanation of the observed phenomenon.

Some may see this as denying God his rightful place as the center and instigator of all Creation. But that's that what is at issue. What is at issue is man's quest for knowledge through controlled observation and experimentation. In that context, God is an ultimate cause, and we don't do a lot of worrying about ultimate causes. We aren't really playing with the origins of the universe, or even the origins of life.

Those adjuncts to our theories are interesting and get a lot of press, but I have yet to meet a practicing scientist who is WORKING on those issues. People may think about them, theorize about them even. But that's all done in a kind of "hey, this is kind of possible" framework.

If you look at what evolutionary scientists study, there is almost NOTHING in the literature about the origin of life. What we do is try to come up with theories that cover what we CAN observe and experiment on, and then, when we are comfortable, try to expand the theory to see what kinds of predictions it would make on the larger scale.

The thinking is that if a theory explains all the observable phenomena, it is most likely true. Then, if we take that theory to be "TRUE" we look at what the implications are for things we only have guesses about. And sometimes some of those predictions are testable. So we go test them.

And that is science -- generating testable predictions and running the appropriate experiments to see if our predictions are true.

In that context, you can't go "And God created a miracle here" because, as has been said a few times already, that is untestable.

Doesn't mean it isn't true.

It just means it isn't science.

Thus we come back to the original assertion, that Creationism isn't science. It isn't. It just isn't.

That doesn't mean it isn't true.

It just isn't science.

So, it should not be taught in a science class, even if it offers a plausible alternative to the dominant SCIENTIFIC theory.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
The avoidance of absolute truth = a jobs program for scientists?


Michael Behe is challenging the adherence in evolution. The "mainstream" is made up of scientists that believe in evolution. And Behe is wrong because he's not a part of the mainstream...
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Evolution may have problems. But to say that the only or best alternative is belief in a young Earth is definitely bad science. The young Earth idea is flatly contradicted by other branches of science, not just biology.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Michael Behe is being intellectually dishonest in a way irrespective of his views on evolution. He misquotes, he ignores evidence, and his methodologies are flawed.

And it has nothing to do with him being against evolution, but it makes him a heck of a hard person to trust on any issue. His one decent argument, on irreducible complexity, has since been countered by considerable evidence.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Why is it "bizarre" that the school's superintendent did what she did? Isn't that part of her job, deciding how her schools will be run?

I don't think she was trying to reclassify evolution, I think she was trying to please people on both sides of the issue.

Are school superintendents not allowed to make changes in curricula or policy unless they are an expert in the subject that the changes may affect?

And how much of an expert? Is a basic college course enough, or does an administrator have to complete a dissertation on the subject before they are allowed to make decisions about the course?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Sachiko,

Text book authors shouldn't be told what words to use in their texts unless the person doing the telling is more knowledgable in the subject matter.

That kind of error is how we got Texas listing pi as rounded off to "3"
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
I take issue with the argument that science is true because science says so. I've heard before that some scientists are wrong because "they're not mainstream".

Especially when it's scientists who have a stake in evolution being true that define the "mainstream".

My father has degrees in chemistry and mathematics; my brothers are, respectively, in the medical field and in physics. Science is very important to my family. So is religion; we believe in God, and that He created the universe.

A lot of other scientists feel this way, too; that science is not always right; that God isn't obviated by science.

These scientists or not as small a minority as "the mainstream" would have one believe. The problem is, often, their articles and letters-to-the-editor aren't published in the popular science magazines. They're excommunicated from the mainstream of science for questioning basic tenets of science.

It's a circular argument, to define science as "what I think" and to say that those who disagree don't matter because they're not really "scientists".
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
They rounded pi off to 3?

*giggle*

From what I read at the beginnning of the thread, Ms. Cox was specifying how the course should be taught, not how it was written about in the textbook.

I don't agree with the move, by the way, because it doesn't address the real issue. I don't like it when people euphemize things in order to make it more palatable.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

These scientists or not as small a minority as "the mainstream" would have one believe. The problem is, often, their articles and letters-to-the-editor aren't published in the popular science magazines. They're excommunicated from the mainstream of science for questioning basic tenets of science.

---

God's nonexistence is not a basic tenet of science. Nor is the fact that the universe is 10+ billion years old. The former is not a question for science, at least not yet. The latter is a discovery that science has made, and a well-confirmed one at that. I too know many scientists who believe in God. But they realize how ridiculous it would be for them to reject carbon-dating or the Big Bang. It would undermine everything that allows them to do their jobs.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
If we were to start mentioning Christian Creationism as an alternative theory to the beginning of life on this planet, would it not then be only fair to mention other theories?

Would a Christian Creationist be upset if their theory were listed among the following:

Marduk slayed the dragon Tiamet and formed the world and sky from its body, and the rivers and oceans from its blood.

The world is made up of dirt piled atop Turtle's back, and humans are descended from a girl who fell from the clouds.

Out of Chaos was born Gaia, the earth, and from her, Uranos, the sky, and subsequent generations of titans and gods created the rest.

Out of Nun there came Khephri, who gave birth to Geb and Nut (the earth and sky), who then gave birth to the gods.

The nine realms are centered around Yggdrasil, the great world tree, and humans were created from the god Ymir's sweat.

etc, etc...

Should these theories all be proposed as alternatives? If not, why not? Is it because of an absence of evidence? What about the Icelandic Sagas, or inscriptions and paintings on temples and pyramids? Is it because they are not "mainstream" enough?

Why should religious beliefs exist alongside scientific theories?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Science is not a set of statements about what is true or not. It is a system of determining confidence in the truth or confirmability of hypotheses. It exists independent of any specific conclusions. If the majority of scientists believed something in a manner that was not scientifically valid, that isn't science. That's belief, which might be right or wrong, but isn't scientific. Creationism doesn't conform to scientific testing, and, as such, can't be taught as a scientific theory. That doesn't mean that it is right or wrong, just that it is not scientific.

William of Ockam used what we now call Occam's Razor (along with other things) to show this. The thing that most people don't understand is that William was an ardent believer in God and a theologican to boot. His point was not that God didn't exist because it violated his Razor, but rather that, because science and reason must necessarily use the Razor, they were insufficient when talking about God.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Sachiko -- its generally estimated that the majority of scientists believe in God and that he created the universe. This is hardly glossed over, in fact its usually brought up by scientists regularly when they keep getting accused of being Godless heathens (and I'm not saying anyone in this thread has done this, it just happens a lot). Evolutionary theorists included.

Its not mentioned in science class because it has nothing to do with science.

And the scientists who believe that science is always right are very few and far between. Your relatives are likely not atypical -- why do you assume that most scientists are unlike the scientists you know? The basis of science is observation; I know many scientists, and most are quite confident science is often wrong. Its part of why they do science, so the field can become "more right".

in particular, its important to understand that science does not deal in Truth. Science deals in observation, and experimentation, and probability, and in many other inexact areas that are tied to our senses of the natural world. Anything beyond the natural world has nothing to do with science, even if it is True.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Nice reply.

If so many scientists do believe in God, or at least don't disbelieve in one, then why are so many hostile to the simple mention of the fallibility of evolution, or the existence of Creationism as a valid standpoint?

Maybe it's just that the editors of Discover, Scientific American and Popular Science are godless heathens. Because, when forced to admit that some scientists do believe in God, it seems like they think it's a shameful secret.

But, otherwise, I agree with you, especially your last paragraph.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

If so many scientists do believe in God, or at least don't disbelieve in one, then why are so many hostile to the simple mention of the fallibility of evolution, or the existence of Creationism as a valid standpoint?

---

quote:

---

The basis of science is observation; I know many scientists, and most are quite confident science is often wrong. Its part of why they do science, so the field can become "more right".

in particular, its important to understand that science does not deal in Truth.

---

quote:

---

What you're calling truth is better called consistency. Science doesn't assume anything is true, it assumes accurate scientific theories are consistent with each other and with observation.

---

quote:

---

For instance, if the universe was created five minutes ago in the exact form we observe it as having had five minutes ago, it doesn't matter that when physics extrapolates backwards it determines stars were created billions of years ago. The universe was still created five minutes ago.

However, as far as physics/science is concerned, the stars are observationally billions of years old.

---

quote:

---

No, its which theory is more inconsistent with observation that you ditch. Science has always been about ditching the least consistent, which has never been a problem because we've never had one completely consistent theory/premise, much less two at once.

---

quote:

---

Just because you odn't consider it True doesn't mean it isn't True; in fact you just illustrated what I've been trying to point out with regards to what science is: it just doesn't have anything to do with stuff like God and whatnot that are perpendicular to the natural senses.

---

quote:

---

As I said earlier, science is about observational truth. Just not Truth, or what is absolutely true. Only what can be observed.

---

quote:

---

Not in science class. If it can't be tested, it doesn't belong there.

---

quote:

---

We can pick one or the other of these approaches. But don't pretend like "Man evolved from single-celled organisms" is somehow more scientific or testable than "God created man." If you believe this then I challenge you to, right now, offer up an experiment to test the claim that Man evolved from single-celled organisms, in such a way that if it we don't see the expected result it would prove evolution wrong with complete and absolute certainty. This is the test for whether or not a claim is scientific.

---

quote:

---

It's not a matter of two, its a matter of thousands or millions. We have a huge wealth of experimental data -- if one assumption is consistent with 99% of the experimental data, and another is consistent with 50%, the 99% one is staying, regardless of which one is "more fundamental". Situations like you describe just don't arise.

---

quote:

---

And anyways, a teleporting ball is consistent with both those theories: read some more of Hawking's work.

---

quote:

---

Consistency with observation we do know what it is.

---

quote:

---

Your outlook on science, that anything which is true can be detected

---

quote:

---

Past events cannot be described with perfect accuracy, and future events cannot be known with perfect accuracy. As such, there's no such thing as a true account of science except one that talks in probabilities, likelihoods.

---

quote:

---

Xap - plenty of claims about the past can be tested. In fact, any claim of the form "the past could possibly have happened this way, with this probability from current observation, with this degree of certainty from current observation" can certainly be tested . . . and that's all the kind of claim that science makes about the past.

---

quote:

---

It asserts there is a great deal of evidence that is highly consistent with man having evolved from single celled organisms, and it doesn't assert anything at all about God.

---

quote:

---

Science is about observational consistency, and one certainly can evaluate whether or not man having evolved from single celled organisms is consistent with observation!

---

quote:

---

In fact, Bayesians and other epistemologists interested in scientific induction are working on a number of ways to justify inductive reasoning about the past.

---

Yes, well call me when they can actually show induction works. Folks have been working on that problem for over a century.

[ January 31, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
And you call me when you stop using induction.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
[semi-non-sequitor]

quote:

---

Only on the outdated Karl Popper philosophy of science, which says that testability and falsifiability is all there is.

---

quote:

---

Karl Popper outdated???!!!

I would hardly say that.

Maybe Kuhn has a better handle on the process of change in science. And others since have moved away from Popper's work. But I think you'd be hard pressed to teach a course ABOUT science & how it works without dealing with Popper.

---

I totally agree, Bob. Popper is outdated in the same sense as many old and venerable philosophers: his views are still respected and studied, but no one believes he was entirely right any more.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
What does 'everyone' think he's mistaken about?
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
New Georgia Bumper Sticker:

"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"



[ January 31, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

What does 'everyone' think he's mistaken about?

---

That varies, but it's not very common to think that falsifiability is the only constraint on theories. Real scientists obviously allow for other considerations like simplicity and explanatory power. Also, it's not at all true that scientists will simply abandon a theory if it's undermined by an experiment. Instead they often modify it, or search for ways in which the experiment could be explained away by the existing theory. Abandoning an established theory is a last resort.

And there's also the problem of the theory-ladenness of experiments, as I mentioned to fugu. It's never really possible to say that a particular theory was falsified by evidence. You could always change or abandon one of the assumptions or related theories instead.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Destineer,

This is really cool that you've read all this stuff.

Do they teach the 100+ year old article about "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses" still? It's my favorite thing on how to do better in science. Especially how to avoid bias and pet theories.

But you are exactly right that most scientists are loathe to abandon a theory that has worked well over time because of one contrary result. The more successful a theory has been in the past, the more contrary evidence is required to convince people that it needs revision or outright dumping.

It also requires that someone come up with a reasonable substitute first. A science without a unifying theory just doesn't feel right, I think.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
All scientists have to test is observation, never "reality". Scientists don't make statements about reality, really, they make statements about observations (see below for where I qualify this considerably). There isn't any statement about reality that's truly falsifiable, as its possible for their to be situations which fool the "senses" (our observations). Only statements about observation are testifiable and falsifiable, which is why science is only about observation.

And yes, Tres, whether or not George Washington was (likely) the First President of the US under the Constitution is a matter of science, or perhaps of the scientific method would be a better way of putting it.

However, statements like "God (likely) exists" are outside the realm of science because God (as meant in this case) is definitionally incompatible with observation.

Destineer -- I'm with one half of the scientist camp, you're with the other, on this one. There's been a huge amount of debate in science over what's really real, with two resulting sides -- one which says science is not fundamentally about what's really real, but about what's really observed, and the other which says science is about what's really observed. I view science as asymptotically approaching a "perfect" description of observation, not reality. My camp's smaller, but we're going to win anyways 'cause we're right . (And anyways, most of the of the other camp allows for exceptions like God which are better accomodated by our outlook -- which would, by the philosophy of most elegant, mean they should change to our philosophy ).

Modifying a theory is equivalent to creating a new, similar theory and switching to it. It is completely consistent with what I said about taking what agrees with observation most (note this measure is highly subjective).

I apologize for appearing to impugn your knowledge of physics, I meant no such disrespect.

Going with Big Bang theory predicting an outcome which has since been observed -- certainly! It is highly consistent with current observation. Quite likely to have occurred. I've been saying this all along. Its just that every one of our readings is also perfectly consistent with the universe having come into being five minutes ago in a way that would replicate the effect. There's no reason (its simpler! isn't a reason; its a philosophical, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption about how things work) this second description could not be true, however, there is significant reason it is not scientific, in that it is not observable.

Yes, YEC is consistent with the evidence. Which is why we need a different measure of when something is scientific. Such as having predictable results, something I have been holding up as necessary throughout this entire thread. Come to think of it, I bet simplest possible explanation is actually a derivative notion of predictable results *goes off to think on that*
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
On the subject of observation -- I didn't mean a theory would be thrown out when a single observation came along which contradicted it. I meant a theory would be thrown out when enough observation came along (or a new theory) such that a different theory was more observationally consistent.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Belle, I stand in awe of you. It takes a woman with powerful ovaries to stand up to these gentlemen the way you have! You make some excellent points, and I like the way you point out and question assumptions.

As a teacher, I have to be sensitive to my community. Bob mentioned his "taxpayer" dollars. Schools are ultimately responsible to those they serve.

When it comes to controversial subjects like Evolution (with a capital E, note), I see no reason not to teach it. It is a widely accepted scientific theory. And as a teacher, I would refer to it as such. And I would also say, some people don't agree with this theory. And not make a judgment on those who don't. Often, I get kids asking me if I go to church, or what I believe. I lump these questions in with Creationism V. Evolution. Sometimes, if the child is mature, I will tell them what I personally think and distinguish it as an opinion. Other times, I tell the child that it doesn't matter what -I- think, but what he or she thinks. And I ask, "Can you support why you think that?" And I don't try to influence one way or another. I respect the children and their parents too much for that. Everyone must come to their own decisions about what they believe to be true. My job is to present information.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I also find it incredibly annoying that a useful word like "evolution" has become somewhat taboo due to this scientific controversy.

What's so "evil" about the evolution of an idea? Or the evolution of a society or business? Evolution is small change over time.

I've shocked students when I've talked about the evolution of a work in progress, just because I used the word "evolve". Not even in a scientific context!

ARGH!
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"What scientific evidence is there that intelligent design exists? There is none. That's why I proposed it be taught as a theory. Intelligent design can't be proven, so it should not be taught as a fact."

I'd like to assert that this is the fundmental problem with Belle's argument.

THere is no scientific evidence that ID exists, so it is NOT a theory. A theory, in the scientific community, is more then a guess about the way the universe works. A theory has scientific evidence to support it, and has gone through the wringer a few times. A scientific fact, which evolution both is and is not depending on context, is something that has specifically been observed.

Gravity, for all that we know about it, is a scientific theory. A scientific fact related to gravity is that when an apple falls near the earth, it falls in the direction of the earth's center of mass. This is a different statement from "Gravity causes an apple that falls near the earth to head towards the earth's center of mass."

Likewise, it is fact that there are genetic changes over time within populations. We've observed this, and if you want to go observe it, head into a biology lab doing work on genetic changes. You'll find it to be true. This sort of evolution is fact, much like the statement "When an apple falls near the earth...." Evolutionary theory posits that this genetic change is the mechanism for species diversity, etc. This is a theory, because its the best explanation that can be supported by observable facts that fits in with all the other theories and facts that we have conerning life on earth.

Note that word "best" there. Its rather important. If a hypothesis doesn't fit the other theories and facts that we have gathered, and isn't the best fit of all theories in regards to what it is trying to explain, then its unlikely to be an accepted scientific theory, and as such, won't be talked about within the scientific community as a "Theory."

Science uses the fact/theory/hypothesis/guess continuum differently then the vernacular has that continuum. A fact is something that has been observed to happen. A theory is something that has withstood the rigors of scientific methodology. A hypothesis is something that has been proposed as a possible mechanism, but has not yet undergone enough testing to become a theory.

For example, I have observed that apples fall towards the center of the earth. I hypothesize that all objects fall towards the center of mass of the earth. Now I will perform experiments to determine whether this is a good hypothesis or not.

After performing a number of experiments for myself in the lab, I suggest that the hypothesis is true, and write up my results to be published.

My methodology in the lab was good, so my results are published, and towards the bottom of my paper, I posit the idea that it appears, within the constraints of my experiments, that all objects fall towards the center of the earth.

Another experimental physicist reads my paper. He says "This doesn't match with astronomical data," publishes a paper explaining how some objects fall towards teh sun, and others towards the center of the galaxy, etc. and therefore, while my factual observations are correct within the context of my experiments, my hypothesis is flawed, and the theory of gravity explains the observational universe more completely. Thus, my hypothesis dies, and the theory of gravity remains dominant.

Note: The observational facts I gather are the same under both my hypothesis that all objects fall towards the center of the earth, and the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity, however, explains a much larger number of observational facts, as well as fitting within a theoretical construct that explains an even larger number of natural phenomenon. Thus, the scientific theory is gravity.

Saying "Evolution is only a theory," shows exactly how strong evolution is within the community.

Edit: Note that its possible to have two competeing theories, where both fit whats known to approximately the same degree. String theory is currently a weak scientific theory in competition with, for example, Loop quantum gravity. Both of theories fit a fair amount of evidence, but there's nothing yet to distinguish to the point where one will be discarded or at best used for a small subset of predictions.

However, ID and evolution are not in competition. There isn't any evidence that fits the ID hypothesis, since ID doesn't have any evidence that suggests it, whereas evolution explains a vast quantity of stuff, and is suggested by large quantities of evidence.

In my above example, I can point to the evidence that makes me suggest that the objects--->earth hypothesis is reasonable. It also explains a lot of evidence. Gravity explains more. In the ID evolution debate, scientifically, ID isn't suggested by any evidence, because we don't have anything to observe that says "god." As Bob said above, ID is saying "The miracle happened HERE." Belle admits that there is no evidence for ID. This is why it is not a theory, and barely even a hypothesis. It is a guess, within the scientific framework.

[ February 01, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

And yes, Tres, whether or not George Washington was (likely) the First President of the US under the Constitution is a matter of science, or perhaps of the scientific method would be a better way of putting it.

---

quote:

---

However, statements like "God (likely) exists" are outside the realm of science because God (as meant in this case) is definitionally incompatible with observation.

---

quote:

---

A theory, in the scientific community, is more then a guess about the way the universe works. A theory has scientific evidence to support it, and has gone through the wringer a few times. A scientific fact, which evolution both is and is not depending on context, is something that has specifically been observed.

---

quote:

---

I said that man having highly probably evolved from single celled organisms being consistent with observation was a theory. Don't keep trying to apply your definition of evolutionary theory when its incorrect, Tres. The theory as I described it is eminently falsifiable -- if I find an observation which contradicts single celled organisms having highly likely evolved into man, I have falsified it, and must create a revised theory (which could be anything from a slight revision of the probability involved to a complete reworking).

---

quote:

---

Experiment to prove that man did not evolve from a single celled organism-
One which shows single celled organisms can't develop into more then one cell.
Experiment that shows two celled organism can't develop into more cells.
ETc.

---

quote:

---

And I don't think you've been reading my posts very closely, I didn't say that such a phrasing was sufficient for it to be a scientific theory about the past, I said it was necessary (actually, I just said that was how it was in certain cases, but given I have stated other conditions I would rather think the necessary was implied).

---