posted
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).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
posted
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Oh, and Chris - this isn't specifically directed at you, it's just thrown out there. I know you said in your post that you don't think anything should be taught as fact if it's not provable - we agree on that.
[ January 31, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should mention that I'm okay with creationist theories being mentioned in comparative religion, or when covering the history of science, or similar.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean the asteroid as a mechanism of the KT boundary extinction. I know that wasn't very clear.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Sure it can. We can observe different species compared to fossil records and we can make evaluations based on those observations. We just can't prove it conclusively, and it's likely we never will.
So we teach theories in science, and motivations in Comp. Religion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You say it's not an insult, but you are essentially saying "You aren't smart enough to understand this so shut up."
No. He's pointing out, rather accurately, that you're misinformed and uninformed. He's suggesting you read up on the subject, rather than peruse political arguments you want to agree with. Nowhere has he insulted your intelligence.
He's treating you with dignity, Adrian, and I'm honestly impressed by his debating style. There's no need for you to distort his intentions.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"God" does not belong in science class any more than "God's will" belongs in med school. It might be the case, but it's not an excuse to keep from searching and learning all we can.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, and what makes you think I haven't read the original theory, Bob? What makes you think I havent' read Gould in context?
Why do you people assume I'm an ignorant person on a crusade who doesn't look at both sides? I used to believe in evolution. I used to agree with everything Gould said. I considered being a biologist at one time because I found the concept fascinating and wanted to study it.
Don't insult me by lumping me in with people who blindly accept something because their pastor said they should. I'm not uninformed and I'm not stupid and you people are pissing me off.
Yeah, he doesn't want to be associated with hopeful monster and he's furious that creationists have latched onto his theory and used it against the graduated theorists.
His theory though is only different from the original hopeful monster theory in degrees.
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
Do you not see how this begs the question? we can't prove macroevolution on a species level, so we have to admit it didn't occur gradually, but very, very quickly.
How do we know it happened this way? Because there are changes, don't you see, an amphibian became a reptile and we know that We have all these changes in the larger groups.
So you can't prove that the small changes happened, so you use evidence that larger changes did as proof that your theory is correct even though you can't document any changes? After all, your abundant examples in the larger groups are all fully formed functioning species, right?
But see, there is a progression, reptile to amphibian to small mammal to human.
How do you know it's a progression, how do you know that one became the other?
Because evolution is a fact.
You can't prove that.
Yes we can, we have punctuated equilibrium.
It's a circle. He's using evidence for evolution that is based on the belief that evolution exists.
Another explanation is simply that reptiles, amphibians, mammals all existed because they were all created. But Gould can't consider that explanation. He can't prove it's wrong, and he can't prove he's right, so he dismisses creationism and sets about to explain HOW evolution happened, not establish that macroevolution happened AT ALL.
And you think I'm stupid because I don't accept that reasoning? What other field of science would allow something to be referred to as FACT with so little and such contradictory evidence?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris you can't use the fossil record to make evaluations and prove anything.
There is no way that evolution on a molecules to man level can be proven as a fact.
Scientific fact can only be established by observable and reproducible results. Unless you change the definition of scientific fact, you can't refer to marcoevolution as one.
Microevolution, sure. The problem is most schools don't differentiate between the two and teach evidence for micro as proving macro.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I guess I should explain where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to convert anyone with my arguments or trying to "prove" creationism.
I am giving you my beliefs as to why evolution should not be taught as fact in the school system. It is taught that way, I know, I've read the textbooks.
It's misleading kids by teaching them that something is a fact that can never be proven to be.
Teach both sides. Teach the current theories of evolution, but don't teach only one side of it. Talk about the flaws in the theory. TAlk about the problems with radiometric dating. Talk about the dissenting opinions among scientists as to the origin of the earth.
Let kids examine what we do know to be fact and then make up their minds. Tell them there are alternate theories including intelligent design. It's not against the constitution to teach kids that intelligent design is a theory some people have. You're not telling them it's correct and you're not teaching the value of one religion over another. You're giving them the information and letting them fomulate their opinions.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of them will choose to believe in macroevolution and that's cool.
Many Christians accept current evolutionary theory and that's fine too. Doesn't make them less of a Christian.
My hot button on this is the assumption that evolution is true and no other explanation can fit our observations. It's not true. I don't like teaching kids that Gould's opinions are facts when they can never be conclusively proven. That's dishonest.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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:
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 .
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Because most scientists realize you can believe in God and evolution at the same time.
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.
How can scientists help the field become more right if science doesn't discover truth?
I understand the basis of your position, fugu, but I do believe that science discovers truth. Or at least approximate truth. If it doesn't, why should we care about its results?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It approximates observation, or truth with a little t.
Truth with a big T just isn't accessible to science, because it can be inobservable, or logically impossible, or whatnot.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody ever read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller? He's a cell biologist who makes a good argument that evolution is not only not incompatible with religious faith, but can be a support for it. Fascinating book.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are theoretical assumptions that go into observation. When you observe the results of a collision in a particle accelerator, for example, you normally assume conservation of energy and use that in part to derive your results. You say that a neutrino flew off to the left, not because you've directly detected the neutrino (which is normally impossible) but because you see missing energy on your calorimeter and conclude that the energy went into the neutrino.
So science doesn't just predict observations, it provides their theoretical underpinnings.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darn! I should have known that using the word "mainstream" wasn't a good idea. Heck, how is a foreigner supposed to know all them pejorative connotations of them words?
I'm almost tempted to explain again what I meant by it. You know, like, how scientific thinking has lead the vast majority of researchers to the same basic conclusions again and again... On the other hand, it takes someone extremely unfamiliar with real science work, or a troll, to misunderstand what I said. So why bother?
Bob, I very much agree with most everything you said in this thread! I'm just a tiny bit more sceptical about the extent to which the "general public", and even teachers, understand scientific methodology. In no other country have I met as deep a public mistrust of science as in the US. (Notwithstanding the eager readiness of your average science-questioner to make use of the outcome of scientific research in his or her daily life.) Just don't get your hopes up too much regarding the skills of teachers! After all, most of the general public has at some point been exposed to those teachers... Remember one of Hatrack's very own former teachers? That one, Baldar, quite explicitly stated his conviction that all that scientists ever do is to look for, and find, half-falsified evidence for their preconceived opinions. Grrrr.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's actually a huge debate in science right now.
Really I've mainly been talking about natural science, rather than generic physical science such as physics, which is a physical but not a natural science.
However, even physics is all still just observation. It has no ability to talk about God (as commonly defined in Christianity), or if the universe came into existence 5 minutes ago, or similar.
Physics says things like "from our observations all particles behave like tiny strings consistently". If there was ever an observation that was inconsistent with that statement, physics would change. The descriptions of how things are in physics are predicated on observation, not the other way around. Physics only tells us Truth insofar as Truth is observationally consistent with the universe, which could be a very limited consistency for all we know.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You say it's not an insult, but you are essentially saying "You aren't smart enough to understand this so shut up."![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And no, I don't get all my science from Nova ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
