Evolution In The Classroom

[reggieM]

“This problem . . ] became the private domain of a quasi-scientific movement, who secreted it away in a morass of petty scholasticism, effectively disguising the fact that their primary concern with it was ideological, not scientific.”

Their primary concern was ideological. Yes, true – but in ways that the authors do not recognize.

Dogmatic thinking has prevailed all too often in our account,
with disastrous consequences for the progress of the fields of
microbiology, molecular biology, and the study of the evolutionary
process. It led to the stagnant and scientifically invalid notion
of the prokaryote; it led to the redefinition of the problem of the
gene; and through a slavish adherence to the modern evolutionary
synthesis, it led to a premature declaration of victory in the
struggle to understand the evolutionary process.

His only mistake is suggesting that Darwinian theory is inadequate to the task. To be a good Darwinist, he really should say that evolutionary theory has absolutely no flaws, has never shown a failed prediction and explains all of reality (with a few minor exceptions).

Then, after having given homage and worship to Charles Darwin, he could, somewhere far down in the text in the middle of a paragraph – suggest that “dogmatic thinking has prevailed” and evolutionists prematurely declared victory.

Perhaps there is no clearer demonstration
of the hollowness of the modern evolutionary synthesis
in its **claim to be a full account of the evolutionary process **than
the unfortunate circumstances of its encounter with microbiology.
For we can trace the beginning of the end of the modern
evolutionary synthesis to the moment when microbiology, molecular
biology, and the evolution process first collided

He might cause some people to get very upset.​

 

[tjm190]

That’s right:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

If you’re going to simply restate your beliefs when those beliefs are shown to be false, why do you bother engaging others in discussions?

Interestingly enough the page you link to states that “the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’”- but of course goes on to say “most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.” I suppose the author believes he knows more about the work said biologists do than the biologists themselves.

 

[tjm190]

1. I declare that this thing evolved. Thus, evolution did not fail.

A declaration based on the fact that natural selection is the best fitting natural mechanism to explain species diversity. Attributing these observations to super natural causes would have the scientific validity of a meteorologist claiming that a draught would continue until Zeus ceased to be angry with us, or that the bees wouldn’t return to be harvested unless we burn a sacrifice in a wicker statue- you’re welcome to believe that, but please keep it out of our schools.

 

[reggieM]

– you’re welcome to believe that, but please keep it out of our schools.

It’s already in your schools.

16% of U.S. Science Teachers are Creationists

Of these, 48% - about 12.5% of the total survey - said they taught it as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species”.

 

[edwest2]

A declaration based on the fact that natural selection is the best fitting natural mechanism to explain species diversity. Attributing these observations to super natural causes would have the scientific validity of a meteorologist claiming that a draught would continue until Zeus ceased to be angry with us, or that the bees wouldn’t return to be harvested unless we burn a sacrifice in a wicker statue- you’re welcome to believe that, but please keep it out of our schools.

“please keep it out of our schools” Here, as clearly stated as possible, is the reason for the eternal vigilance here. Please keep it out of “our” schools, government buildings and government land. This is a free country but not when it comes to your beliefs. Please keep them in your designated holy buildings, homes and private property.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, 4 out of 5 shool kids read “Religion, The Only Basis of Society” by William McGuffy. 122 million copies.

“natural” = non-God and the march to secular socialism continues.

The dodge or distraction of referencing mythology is just a cover for the real concern.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

In the 1800s and early 1900s, 4 out of 5 shool kids read “Religion, The Only Basis of Society” by William McGuffy. 122 million copies.

That is an amazing fact - I didn’t know that. I did know that McGuffy readers were quite popular and fully accepted though.

I’d like to say “please keep your atheism out of our schools” since atheists propagate their doctrine in biology textbooks. Apparently, belief in God is forbidden, but atheistic propaganda must be permitted and supported.

 

[tjm190]

“please keep it out of our schools” Here, as clearly stated as possible, is the reason for the eternal vigilance here. Please keep it out of “our” schools, government buildings and government land. This is a free country but not when it comes to your beliefs. Please keep them in your designated holy buildings, homes and private property.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, 4 out of 5 shool kids read “Religion, The Only Basis of Society” by William McGuffy. 122 million copies.

“natural” = non-God and the march to secular socialism continues.

The dodge or distraction of referencing mythology is just a cover for the real concern.

Peace,
Ed

So you believe that your particular super natural explanations are okay, but Zeus worshipers should keep their mouths shut?

 

[edwest2]

If you’re going to simply restate your beliefs when those beliefs are shown to be false, why do you bother engaging others in discussions?

Interestingly enough the page you link to states that “the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’”- but of course goes on to say “most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.” I suppose the author believes he knows more about the work said biologists do than the biologists themselves.

“shown to be false”? By whom? The author has the standing to show that his colleagues have been brainwashed into believing something that sounds reasonable but which has no actual, functional bearing on their work. So, he shows that however you define evolution, believing in it does not affect the actual work done. It does not help the process. Nowhere does the author even imply “he knows more,” he simply revealed that these scientists have taken a certain belief for granted as being true, but on closer examination, it has no practical effect on their work.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

It’s already in your schools.

16% of U.S. Science Teachers are Creationists

Of these, 48% - about 12.5% of the total survey - said they taught it as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species”.

People are entitled to their beliefs with respect to the supernatural, even within the school system- however, that does not mean students should be required to hear about them.

 

[tjm190]

“shown to be false”? By whom? The author has the standing to show that his colleagues have been brainwashed into believing something that sounds reasonable but which has no actual, functional bearing on their work. So, he shows that however you define evolution, believing in it does not affect the actual work done. It does not help the process. Nowhere does the author even imply “he knows more,” he simply revealed that these scientists have taken a certain belief for granted as being true, but on closer examination, it has no practical effect on their work.

Peace,
Ed

You said evolution played no role in drug discovery. I gave a clear counter example. He ‘shows’ nothing- he extrapolates based on personal experience.

 

[tjm190]

That is an amazing fact - I didn’t know that. I did know that McGuffy readers were quite popular and fully accepted though.

I’d like to say “please keep your atheism out of our schools” since atheists propagate their doctrine in biology textbooks. Apparently, belief in God is forbidden, but atheistic propaganda must be permitted and supported.

God doesn’t get any less face time with respect to biology than He does in chemistry, physics, geology, history, or mathematics.

 

[edwest2]

That is an amazing fact - I didn’t know that. I did know that McGuffy readers were quite popular and fully accepted though.

I’d like to say “please keep your atheism out of our schools” since atheists propagate their doctrine in biology textbooks. Apparently, belief in God is forbidden, but atheistic propaganda must be permitted and supported.

As a Catholic, I was brought up to respect authority. My parents expected my teachers to teach me what was true to the best of their ability. Then, beginning in the late 1960s, I saw the beginning of a gradual process that has played out in only one direction over a 40 year period. It was a given that God was real and His word was made manifest in my community in our daily lives. No, not everyone believed as we did, but we had a common set of beliefs that allowed young and old, under common ‘rules of social engagement,’ to deal with each other in a respectful and civil way.

In the 1960s, school prayer was eliminated as unconstitutional. We accepted that.
But in 1968, with the ignoring of Humani Generis, and the beginning of the Sexual Revolution, our respect for authority was abused.
1969 Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice - wife swapping.
1970s So-called Adult Bookstores appear everywhere. Topless go-go bars.
1973 Abortion legalized. Homosexuality removed from the diagnostic and statistical Manual by non-scientific vote.
1978 The National Organization for Women drives a wedge between men and women.
1980s No-Fault Divorce and porn on cable.

By breaking up families, putting kids in day care and distracting people by gradually sexualizing all media, we are here. In a world where values neutral meets the profoundly dysfunctional. Oh yes, at first, the Hippies said, trust us, we’re for peace and love. And at that time, we could relate but we did not know it would all turn pagan. Now, nothing made us. We’re just animals.

In the 1970s, even priests in seminary were not getting accurate teaching on contraception. All that’s turning around, but the gains made by the atheists has meant too many Catholics are living as Agnostics with only a vague sense of their Catholic identity.

I will always study science, and I will continue to object when people present something provisional as all true today and willing to cross the line into religion and God. All that gets repeated here is, According to science, your Bible is wrong, here, here and here. That’s it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You said evolution played no role in drug discovery. I gave a clear counter example. He ‘shows’ nothing- he extrapolates based on personal experience.

What’s wrong with personal experience? I have no idea what you’re trying to do here. I know a lot of things based on personal experience. He asked a bunch of professionals if they would have done their work differently if they thought all that Darwin stuff wasn’t true. Their answer was no.

His question was asked and answered.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

What’s wrong with personal experience? I have no idea what you’re trying to do here. I know a lot of things based on personal experience. He asked a bunch of professionals if they would have done their work differently if they thought all that Darwin stuff wasn’t true. Their answer was no.

His question was asked and answered.

Peace,
Ed

Nothing’s wrong with personal experience- what’s wrong is extrapolating. I can ask any group of people anything, but I can’t use their answer to generalize about the meta group. I gave an example of where evolutionary thinking would be useful. Again though, evolution is a conclusion of scientific study, and the majority of it’s use has been superseded by genetics.

 

[tjm190]

I will always study science, and I will continue to object when people present something provisional as all true today and willing to cross the line into religion and God. All that gets repeated here is, According to science, your Bible is wrong, here, here and here. That’s it.

There is a reference in the Bible to mountains “skipping like rams”- would a geologist be “crossing the line into religion” and God by stating that mountains can’t do that?

 

[reggieM]

There is a reference in the Bible to mountains “skipping like rams”- would a geologist be “crossing the line into religion” and God by stating that mountains can’t do that?

It would be obvious that the geologist does not know how to read the Bible or what it means. His opinion on how that passage should be interpreted is irrelevant and he’d be speaking outside of his area of expertise.

Should the biologist say that Christ did not rise from the dead?

 

[tjm190]

It would be obvious that the geologist does not know how to read the Bible or what it means. His opinion on how that passage should be interpreted is irrelevant and he’d be speaking outside of his area of expertise.

But when teaching about geological formations, the teacher would not be “crossing the line into religion” by not teaching supernatural explanations for said formations?

Should the biologist say that Christ did not rise from the dead?

When teaching anatomy, the teacher should state that rising from the dead is impossible, even if the teacher is a Christian and believes all things are possible for God- because scientific analysis doesn’t take the supernatural into account.

 

[buffalo]

There is a reference in the Bible to mountains “skipping like rams”- would a geologist be “crossing the line into religion” and God by stating that mountains can’t do that?

What was the author trying to convey?

 

[tjm190]

What was the author trying to convey?

Is this an admission that not all passages in the bible are literal? Might I apply this logic to say, Adam and Eve?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Educated by whom becomes the troublesome issue here on both sides. Would you accept someone that was “self-educated” and reached a different conclusion than the “scientific community”?

No, to understand science you must understand the method. Once you do you can see why the great theories are accepted. This is why religiosity drops off as one becomes more scientifically educated.