Evolution In The Classroom

[liquidpele]

Throwing out the theory or modifying it depends on the evidence.

That video isn’t relevant because there is no way to recreate the evolution of human intelligence in a lab setting. It is also tiresome to hear of these mountains of evidence and then be presented with only marginal examples.

Wait what? Recreating human intelligence in the lab, what does that have to do with anything? We’ve seen evolution in a lab setting with things like bacteria and fruit flies, things with a high population turnover. Evolution takes a long time after all. Not to mention the fossil record also supports it.

Here’s a list of evidence for instance:
talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

books.google.com/books?id=su1PHT8tHNoC&pg=RA1-PA489&lpg=RA1-PA489&dq=evolution+in+lab+flies&source=bl&ots=peITkSi_eO&sig=RjJVjr0z3TY_cEkQXdfQvSnimHg&hl=en&ei=MXTJSo-aBpyvtge2wPSvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The idea that peer review screens out weak or unsubstantiated claims is a half truth. It is an excellent selection tool and weeds out a great deal of garbage. However, to claim that the scientific process supersedes human nature and prevents large scale scientific dogma is to ignore basic human fallibility and the lessons of horrifically wrong conclusions that dominated the peer reviewed scientific landscape of the past. For examples, see global cooling/warming, demographic projections about overpopulation and famine, the aforementioned Eugenics theory, and the current predictions that proved untrue concerning SARS, Y2K, Avian Flu, and a range of other terrible non-disasters.

You’re partially right… peer review only works when peers actually review, but when they do it works very well. For instance, it took just days to call the “cold fusion” guys on their bluff, but if I submitted a very boring non-revolutionary claim I doubt it would get refuted… however, lack of peer review is also considered a weakness so it would be considered not well supported.

As for predictions regarding Y2K and outbreaks, those were not scientific predictions and thus I’m not sure why you’re bringing them up. They were simply predictions made by people - mostly the media in fact.

Regarding evolution, let’s see a real debate where scientists on both or all sides show up at a theater and present their sides. Why have I never seen this? If the evidence is that convincing, let’s get it out in the open into the real realm of public debate and discussion with all the evidence.

Well one issue is that very very few scientists actually don’t support evolution… less than 5% really.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

Another is the saying that “If you’re arguing with a fool, make sure he isn’t dong the same”. I’m a computer engineer, I wouldn’t want to get up and argue with someone who claims computers are alien technology we stole or some other nonsense. If you really want something though, here ya go:

youtube.com/watch?v=F-S7M0KZTsU

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Regarding evolution, let’s see a real debate where scientists on both or all sides show up at a theater and present their sides. Why have I never seen this? If the evidence is that convincing, let’s get it out in the open into the real realm of public debate and discussion with all the evidence.

You’re talking about engaging in a debate of science and empirical evidence vs metaphysics and philosophical speculation. This would be completely pointless. God is not a scientific concept nor will it ever be. The following is a great video on the issue of Intelligent Design. It was originally supposed to be a debate but the anti-evolutionist ducked out. Note: This is 2 hours long.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

 

[Nec5]

You’re talking about engaging in a debate of science and empirical evidence vs metaphysics and philosophical speculation. This would be completely pointless. God is not a scientific concept nor will it ever be. The following is a great video on the issue of Intelligent Design. It was originally supposed to be a debate but the anti-evolutionist ducked out. Note: This is 2 hours long.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

Nope. I’m looking for a video/transcript of a debate over the various holes that people like Ham poke in the theory and the corresponding refutation from evolutionists.

There is no need for metaphysics and philosophy. I lasted 20 minutes into that video. That professor is typical of college teachers. His air of superiority and ideology (note the Bush cracks) permeates the entire collegiate atmosphere. It’s a shame that people like him are so smug. Just present the facts as you see them without the arrogance.

That Ken Ham guy and some of his Answers in Genesis speakers are also guilty of this semi-smugness.

 

[gearhead]

I like that you point this out. Although I still cling to “evolution is a theory and it bothers me when people teach it as a fact” I don’t have a problem with it being taught, as a theory (including those facts within it that have been proven to be true), in classrooms. (I went to a very Orthodox Catholic high school and it was taught in detail). I do have a problem with people using it as evidence that everything is random and there is no God (obviously, so do you).

I don’t think that a public school classroom should be used to push any religious position, including the one I happen to hold.

And strictly speaking, evolution isn’t random. The “random mutation” part is, but natural selection is not. In one of his books (“Full House”, IIRC), Stephen Jay Gould goes into detail about this.

From what I know of ID, most people wanting to teach it are trying to push a religious agenda. I do, however, think that, in concept, it could be taught as part of a Science class, if only to produce an alternative to randomness. I don’t see how that’s a problem. Of course, you might have to find a different name for it than ID I guess.

I think it would be good to point out something here. “Intelligent Design” isn’t just the claim that the universe or life had a designer and that this designer was intelligent. “Intelligent Design” is the claim that naturalistic forces would have been insufficient to have allowed life as we see it today to arise through evolution alone, and that therefore interference by a non-naturalistic (and presumably intelligent) agent is needed to explain the history of life.

I think what you’re talking about is more theistic evolution, which is the position that many Catholics I know take. They don’t have a problem with the science involved, but they view evolution as a tool used by God in His creation. That’s perfectly reconcilable with evolution as it’s taught in school; the only thing is that it deals with questions that go well beyond the realm of science, and so won’t be covered in a science classroom.

The Theory of Evolution, just like every other theory of science, does not require God, but it does allow for God. You’re just as free to teach your kids that God is responsible for natural selection, random mutation and inheritance as you are to teach them that God is responsible for gravity or friction.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Nope. I’m looking for a video/transcript of a debate over the various holes that people like Ham poke in the theory and the corresponding refutation from evolutionists.

Ham hasn’t poked any holes in Evolution and, if you’re looking for a rebuttal, then watch the whole video.

 

[Nec5]

Ham hasn’t poked any holes in Evolution and, if you’re looking for a rebuttal, then watch the whole video.

A single speaker is not sufficient. It amounts to little more than a speech. Just as politicians freely misrepresent their opponent’s arguments, so too can a scientist OR a creationist OR and intelligent designer OR an outright skeptic. Real truth can be discerned only within a lively conversation or rhetorical context. This is precisely why science uses a peer review system.

This is also why the presidential debates are not really debates but a series of individual speeches.

Again, I’m looking for a point and counterpoint kind of source. I recently read an Ann Coulter book where she pokes fun/holes in Darwinism and evolution It “sounded” convincing, but I have yet to hear her or anyone else in a real discussion going over these issues with an opponent.

 

[gearhead]

Again, I’m looking for a point and counterpoint kind of source. I recently read an Ann Coulter book where she pokes fun/holes in Darwinism and evolution It “sounded” convincing, but I have yet to hear her or anyone else in a real discussion going over these issues with an opponent.

While not a speaker, Talk Origins’ Index to Creationist Claims does go through things in a point/counterpoint way: most creationist claims that “poke holes” in evolution are dealt with there. Just pick the appropriate category, sub-category, etc. and find the response, citing studies as appropriate.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

A single speaker is not sufficient. It amounts to little more than a speech. Just as politicians freely misrepresent their opponent’s arguments, so too can a scientist OR a creationist OR and intelligent designer OR an outright skeptic.

Miller didn’t misrepresent ID and if the ID proponents were worried about that then perhaps their speaker shouldn’t have ducked out at the last minute.

 

[Nec5]

While not a speaker, Talk Origins’ Index to Creationist Claims does go through things in a point/counterpoint way: most creationist claims that “poke holes” in evolution are dealt with there. Just pick the appropriate category, sub-category, etc. and find the response, citing studies as appropriate.

I’ve looked at that site beforehand. It answers points but where is the response? I want to see the give and take of two parties or more. That is what I need to see, but it appears to not exist on Al Gore’s internet.

 

[gearhead]

I’ve looked at that site beforehand. It answers points but where is the response?

You mean the creationist response to the scientific response?

I want to see the give and take of two parties or more. That is what I need to see, but it appears to not exist on Al Gore’s internet.

You may have difficulty. Creationists and ID-ers tend to avoid real debate with real evolutionary biologists.

 

[Nec5]

You mean the creationist response to the scientific response?

You may have difficulty. Creationists and ID-ers tend to avoid real debate with real evolutionary biologists.

To you first question, yes.
If evolution skeptics avoid real debate, then that is a problem. I have no evidence that it does not work in reverse as well.

My only possible comparison is tangential at best. When global warming scientists finished presenting their evidence to Congress, skeptic arrived to share his views. Congress didn’t wait around to hear him. Of course, that’s Congress and not necessarily evolutionists.

 

[reggieM]

Stephen Meyer vs Peter Ward debate on Intelligent Design

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM -

Thank you, very much, for putting up that link. Stephen Meyer was completely convincing. The other gentleman was not. I heard the same anti-ID talking points. Many of which get repeated here.

First, there is actual design in nature.The only reason some are not seeing the obvious is purely personal bias, and, in some cases, a desire to promote atheism.

Information is only produced by an intelligence. If I said that aliens created our DNA or it was brought here on a comet, I’m certain I would get a hearing. Any other thought would infringe on the supernatural or the G word.

I think that it makes sense to say that science discovers new things and has to revise previous ideas about how some things operate, but, science, as the other gentleman pointed out, is not just a bunch of papers that experts argue over, it has to produce results. It has to have a tangible benefit or people stop funding it.

The alarmist and totally unfounded statement about little Johnny being told that an Intelligent Designer put the nanomachinery into living cells will not extinguish his curiosity. It will not convince him to abandon real science, assuring that the US will turn into a Fourth World country and that we will be conquered by people wielding sharp sticks. That is lunacy and I’m surprised to hear it coming from someone who is obviously intelligent. But I recently read an article by Isaac Asimov saying the same thing.

So the issue here is not about any real, tangible negative effects on science – the only actual issue is religion and politics. The only fear is that little Johnny will understand that information does not appear out of thin air, that codes do not write themselves and that cellular motors are, indeed, actual motors – because they have similar parts and lead to the same type of function, namely propulsion.

The real fear is that Johnny will go home, talk to his mom or dad, and connect the idea of intelligence with God. Such a potentially God affirming idea is bad, very bad. Not because it will be difficult to convince Johnny that space aliens are the Intelligence but that Johnny will grow up more religious than ever. That the purely random, unintelligent process will be shown to be one where complex, specific and elaborate codes were generated by an intelligent agent. This could affect the poltical balance of power.

That said, Mr. Meyer did point out that it is not his goal to get this into schools. I, for one, would not want to see it forced into any school anywhere. However, he presents an excellent argument. He brings up issues regarding extinction and the effects of degraded codes, which has been discussed by others. And he does not throw a lot of what many consider to be valid evolutionary evidence out the window, as some would lead others to believe.

I don’t plan on supporting the Institute he works for, but I will begin following his work.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nec5]

Excellent link. The Meyer debate and some of the other linked mini-debates from that particular youtube series are superb points of discussion.

As for mentioning God in schools, that’s another can of worms. Schools often had a prayer at the beginning and end of class for decades. This brings up separation of church and state issues which, in my obviously conservative point of view, have twisted the original intent by the Founders. It also deals with the balkanization of the country and a decline in shared experiences and beliefs. Again, that’s another thread topic and an ugly one at that.

 

[liquidpele]

Excellent link. The Meyer debate and some of the other linked mini-debates from that particular youtube series are superb points of discussion.

As for mentioning God in schools, that’s another can of worms. Schools often had a prayer at the beginning and end of class for decades. This brings up separation of church and state issues which, in my obviously conservative point of view, have twisted the original intent by the Founders. It also deals with the balkanization of the country and a decline in shared experiences and beliefs. Again, that’s another thread topic and an ugly one at that.

Two other debates I’ve found:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZaCZ2yeBOmQ

This one is a playlist:
youtube.com/watch?v=SwG5XYAbV-A&feature=PlayList&p=687D15EB32B82848&index=0&playnext=1

 

[bookgirl32]

I think it would be good to point out something here. “Intelligent Design” isn’t just the claim that the universe or life had a designer and that this designer was intelligent. “Intelligent Design” is the claim that naturalistic forces would have been insufficient to have allowed life as we see it today to arise through evolution alone, and that therefore interference by a non-naturalistic (and presumably intelligent) agent is needed to explain the history of life.

I think what you’re talking about is more theistic evolution, which is the position that many Catholics I know take. They don’t have a problem with the science involved, but they view evolution as a tool used by God in His creation. That’s perfectly reconcilable with evolution as it’s taught in school; the only thing is that it deals with questions that go well beyond the realm of science, and so won’t be covered in a science classroom.

The Theory of Evolution, just like every other theory of science, does not require God, but it does allow for God. You’re just as free to teach your kids that God is responsible for natural selection, random mutation and inheritance as you are to teach them that God is responsible for gravity or friction.

Thanks. This is what I meant. My rational mind took ID to mean that you could just take Evolution and say God chose to do it that way (which I wouldn’t say in a public science classroom). Someone should come up with a name for the process by which some people use Evolution to argue against God, since it’s the arugmentative equivalent of ID and not really what Evolution in and of itself means.

 

[ctconnor]

I like that you point this out. Although I still cling to “evolution is a theory and it bothers me when people teach it as a fact” I don’t have a problem with it being taught, as a theory (including those facts within it that have been proven to be true), in classrooms. (I went to a very Orthodox Catholic high school and it was taught in detail). I do have a problem with people using it as evidence that everything is random and there is no God (obviously, so do you).

From what I know of ID, most people wanting to teach it are trying to push a religious agenda. I do, however, think that, in concept, it could be taught as part of a Science class, if only to produce an alternative to randomness. I don’t see how that’s a problem. Of course, you might have to find a different name for it than ID I guess.

Nice post!I guess that’s what I was trying to say. I’m also not interested in religion being pushed in the classroom. Is it pushing religion if a scientist says he see’s evidence of intelligence behind our evolution? If it isn’t, then why can’t the “alternative” to randomness be presented. As long as he/she isn’t pushing a particular faith I wouldn’t have a problem.

 

[gearhead]

Is it pushing religion if a scientist says he see’s evidence of intelligence behind our evolution?

It might be. Depends on whether the scientist is talking about his own personal feelings or if he’s talking about an objective conclusion derived from measured evidence.

Also, context matters. Even if this is just based on a personal feeling, it probably wouldn’t be “pushing religion” to say this while giving a talk to a church group on how his faith informs his work.

If it isn’t, then why can’t the “alternative” to randomness be presented.

I’ve got a suspicion here: I think you may have fallen victim to mischaracterizations about what’s actually taught about evolution.

At its core, evolution is an “unintelligent” process: the success of an organism isn’t based on anything but its fitness in the environment in which it finds itself. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it couldn’t have been used by God as a tool.

Science describes lots of “unintelligent” processes in addition to evolution: gravity, diffusion, friction… the list goes on and on. They don’t mean that an intelligence couldn’t have deliberately caused the things we see around us; it just means that such an intelligence would have had to take these processes into account at the outset.

Fundamentally, I don’t think that evolution has greater theological implications than other disciplines of science. For instance, Newton’s work seemed to suggest a “hands-off” God: until his time, it was common to think that without the direct and constant intervention of God, our universe could not sustain itself. However, Newton uncovered a set of principles, rules and laws for the behaviour of the universe that suggested that just maybe God didn’t have to be directly manipulating things all the time. Maybe God was optional.

Now… these weren’t Newton’s conclusions - he was deeply religious and took the existence of God as given. But this is how his work was interpreted at the time.

I think the big controversy around evolution isn’t that it says anything new about God; I think the controversy comes from the fact that it infringes on territory that religion previoiusly (but needlessly, IMO) staked out.

 

[ctconnor]

Strobel is an apologist. He is interested in proving the existence of God. If you’re interested in science, ask a scientist. There are hundreds of books written by qualified biologists on the subject of evolution. Try one of those.

Yes Hatsoff, Strobel is a journalist and was an aetheist. In his book that’s all he does, ask scientists. Strobel presents arguments that aetheists make and puts the onus on the scientist to disprove it.

Hatsoff, I’ve been a Christian for about seven years and I’m 45. Prior to that I was agnostic, very indifferent towards God. The event that changed me was being in my grandmothers room as she passed away. All I can say Hatsoff is that I sensed my grandmothers soul leaving her body. When I looked down at her I knew she had passed, and I was looking at a shell. It was at that point that I thought religion wasn’t “hokie” after all.

I joined RCIA at my church and was on my way to learning about God and the Christian faith. I also needed more then what I was getting out of mass. That’s why I like apologetics because it answers a lot of questions I have. I thank guys, like Strobel, that uses science to answer my questions. It helps my faith when I read scientists are discovering God’s fingerprints in areas they’re doing research.

I don’t see it as a problem to state in a class that we’re here because of either a random or directed process. Now if a teacher is making a case for the directed process and therefore we should follow Islam, then I would have a problem. As long as you’re not pushing a specific faith I don’t see why it’s a problem. FWIW.

Respectfully,

Chuck

 

[gearhead]

I don’t see it as a problem to state in a class that we’re here because of either a random or directed process. Now if a teacher is making a case for the directed process and therefore we should follow Islam, then I would have a problem. As long as you’re not pushing a specific faith I don’t see why it’s a problem. FWIW.

Here’s the big problem: there’s absolutely no scientific evidence that evolution is a directed process. This doesn’t mean you can’t infer this yourself based on your religious beliefs, but the conclusion that evolution is directed isn’t scientific, and therefore has no place in a science classroom.