Evolution In The Classroom

[StAnastasia]

On the other hand, evolution should be taught by itself, without any competition from creationsim or its more educated brother, intelligent design. Creationism is a tangent based on a category mistake. Intelligent design is a philosophy, not a science. Call me old fashioned, but I think only science should be taught in science class.

Schools should no longer teach gravity as if it were a fact. Theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent. Therefore, schools should give equal time to the alternative theory of Intelligent Falling. Intelligent Falling proposes that things fall not because of some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence is pushing them down.

Students should be offered both sides of the issue so they can make an informed decision because part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.

 

[edwest2]

I think God in the classroom and the teaching of evolution are entirely different subjects. I think we’ve gone too far in the United States when it comes to God avoidance. The civil deism of the Founding Fathers seems appropriate for the classroom.

On the other hand, evolution should be taught by itself, without any competition from creationsim or its more educated brother, intelligent design. Creationism is a tangent based on a category mistake. Intelligent design is a philosophy, not a science. Call me old fashioned, but I think only science should be taught in science class.

I show you a car. Intelligently designed or not?

I show you a plant. Intelligently designed or not?

Archaeologists regularly separate the Intelligently designed from the unintelligently formed objects in the ground. Their method is scientific and involves observation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Archaeologists regularly separate the Intelligently designed from the unintelligently formed objects in the ground. Their method is scientific and involves observation.Peace,Ed

When will ID scientists show us proof of God’s existence?

 

[buffalo]

Call me old fashioned, but I think only science should be taught in science class.

Me too Jack. Empirical, that is testable, repeatable and predictable science in the science classroom. I propose a mandatory philosophy class where ID and Evolutionism can be taught. And a metaphysics class too.

 

[buffalo]

When will ID scientists show us proof of God’s existence?

Is that what you are expecting?

 

[StAnastasia]

Is that what you are expecting?

What other purpose would ID “science” serve?

 

[liquidpele]

I emailed Miller to see if he’d say anything about it. I’ll post whatever he replies with.

Alas, he was not quite as helpful as I had hoped, but I do suppose he is a busy man and gets a lot of the same questions over and over. Here was his reply as promised.

Dembski tends to write things that sound as if
they’re “over the head” of the reader - and frankly
it’s usually just an effort to conceal the poor arguments
he makes.

The best place for my response to his counter-arguments
is probably my 2008 book, “Only a Theory.”

onlyatheorythebook.com

Thanks for writing,

Ken Miller

 

[JackQ]

I show you a car. Intelligently designed or not?

I show you a plant. Intelligently designed or not?

Archaeologists regularly separate the Intelligently designed from the unintelligently formed objects in the ground. Their method is scientific and involves observation.

Peace,
Ed

I actually believe in intelligent design. I just don’t believe it is science. It isn’t.

 

[JackQ]

Schools should no longer teach gravity as if it were a fact. Theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent. Therefore, schools should give equal time to the alternative theory of Intelligent Falling. Intelligent Falling proposes that things fall not because of some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence is pushing them down.

Students should be offered both sides of the issue so they can make an informed decision because part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.

There’s more than two sides to this issue.

 

[StAnastasia]

There’s more than two sides to this issue.

To be sure: (1) gravitational pull, (2) Intelligent Falling, (3) Stupid Falling, (4) Accidental Falling.

 

[liquidpele]

I actually believe in intelligent design. I just don’t believe it is science. It isn’t.

Exactly, I’m fine with that! ID is fine as a philosophy. I just have a problem with people saying “I have a hypothesis X, It’s science! now teach it!”

 

[reggieM]

Empirical, that is testable, repeatable and predictable science in the science classroom.

That definitely eliminates evolution.

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
Pitt Professor debunking a major tenet of evolutionary theory

 

[tjm190]

That definitely eliminates evolution.

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
Pitt Professor debunking a major tenet of evolutionary theory

Because evolution is a scientific discovery, rather than a formula. The fact that there was once water on Mars does not render any testable or repeatable conclusions either.

 

[reggieM]

Alas, he was not quite as helpful as I had hoped, but I do suppose he is a busy man and gets a lot of the same questions over and over. Here was his reply as promised.

He didn’t hesitate to try to sell you his book. But it’s good that you tried to get a direct response anyway.

His answer should have been more informative. The charge is that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum and that could only be, at best, an imaginary, indirect single step in a multi-step explanation. It’s like saying that swimming from Los Angeles to Tokyo should be no problem because you can rest in Hawaii on the way.

He could easily give the counter-facts (if he had them) that explain the step-by-step evolution of the flagellum, showing it’s not IC.

The TTSS is a very unsubstantial bit of evidence at best, and it may be totally useless if it did evolve after the flagellum was already fully formed and functioning in the cell.

To me, this is more than “we just don’t know enough yet” because even using pure imagination alone it’s difficult to come up with a story about how these amazing molecular machines evolved in a gradual process.

 

[liquidpele]

He didn’t hesitate to try to sell you his book. But it’s good that you tried to get a direct response anyway.

His answer should have been more informative. The charge is that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum and that could only be, at best, an imaginary, indirect single step in a multi-step explanation. It’s like saying that swimming from Los Angeles to Tokyo should be no problem because you can rest in Hawaii on the way.

He could easily give the counter-facts (if he had them) that explain the step-by-step evolution of the flagellum, showing it’s not IC.

The TTSS is a very unsubstantial bit of evidence at best, and it may be totally useless if it did evolve after the flagellum was already fully formed and functioning in the cell.

To me, this is more than “we just don’t know enough yet” because even using pure imagination alone it’s difficult to come up with a story about how these amazing molecular machines evolved in a gradual process.

Yea, I laughed at the book plug myself

I think you discount how little we still understand. For instance, an entire human is formed from a single cell zygote. This is just as remarkable and we don’t really know a lot about it, yet I doubt some designer is in the womb pushing molecules and cells around. At best I think your argument is that it’s impossible so must be God, and I think this is a God of the Gaps argument. As for the flagellum, there are theories on how it evolved, and even multi-step evolution has been observed in the lab so I can certainly see it happening even if Miller’s theory is incorrect regarding the TTSS.

 

[StAnastasia]

That definitely eliminates evolution.

Tell that to the 100,000 biologists who use and teach evolutionary theory every day. The opinions expressed on an Internet forum are entirely irrelevant to what goes on in the laboratories of the world.

 

[buffalo]

Tell that to the 100,000 biologists who use and teach evolutionary theory every day. The opinions expressed on an Internet forum are entirely irrelevant to what goes on in the laboratories of the world.

Who are they? i would be willing to bet the vast majority does not care either way because it doesn’t affect what they do every day.

 

[carinapir]

That definitely eliminates evolution.

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
Pitt Professor debunking a major tenet of evolutionary theory

This professor actually just disagrees with one part of DARWIN’s version of the theory.

"Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian evolutionary model, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz’s theory because, in Schwartz’s opinion, there is no “missing link.”

He still believes in the basic theory of evolution. Since science, by nature, will always be refining its theories, these types of revisions are expected and encouraged. Darwin did not have any where close to the technology and information that we have now. No one expects him to have gotten it 100% right. He just introduced the basic idea that scientist have been researching for years.

Wildly misrepresenting this article says a lot about how you think.

 

[StAnastasia]

Who are they? i would be willing to bet the vast majority does not care either way because it doesn’t affect what they do every day.

I’m afraid you’ll have to do that legwork yourself. Go on the Internet and look up the faculty profiles of biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, and geologists in the world’s many universities. See how many are writing articles about how their research support “young earth creationism” or “intelligent design creationism.”

Or you might research how many conferences – other than the whining at Villanova in two weeks – are delivering news about “cutting edge” breakthroughs in YEC or ID research.

StAnastasia

 

[carinapir]

Here is a very interesting article I found in another thread regarding evolution:

The Designs of Science
by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-designs-of-science–4

Cardinal Schönborn is the man that Father Coyne was disagreeing with in an article that I posted earlier and he someone who some posters here have been using to argue against accepting evolution. In this article Cardinal Schonborn says the following:

"Many readers will no doubt be disappointed. It seemed that, right or wrong, my original essay was all about science, about real, tangible, factual knowledge of the material world. But now I admit to be speaking in the language of natural philosophy, that old-fashioned way of understanding reality which quickly faded into the intellectual shadows after the arrival of the new knowledge of Galileo and Newton. "

And

“For now, I happily concede that a metaphysically modest version of neo-Darwinism could potentially be compatible with the philosophical truth (and thus Catholic teaching) about nature.”

But what is more interesting is that he does speak directly to the issue that we are discussing in this thread. He does not seek to debunk evolution but argues and cautions that science by nature excludes “formal and final causes” from its concept of nature. He does not mean to say that science is bad but that a scientist must look up from the microscope and consider the world in order for his intellect to find God. And also that we as individuals need to step back from science and seek an understanding of God through philosophy as well.

He does make a point to mention, in his mind, textbooks do sometimes contain language use evolution to make “theological assertions” that are essentially atheist. He goes on to discuss other points that I have not read yet, but the bottom line is that he is not anti-evolution.