Evolution In The Classroom

[tjm190]

If we are not about exposing sin and calling it what it is, what are we for? Science? A method easily twisted to achieve the desired result. I can point to experts who advocate all sorts of things. One good example is the destruction of human embryos. Ask any embryologist if a human embryo is in fact a human embryo. Shouldn’t it be obvious? But no. When those in authority can speak without regard for valid criticism then I wonder what is behind the push for rationality in everyday life. Or is rationality thrown out the window when a means to what is described as a good end is ignored for what it really is?

“Listen to the experts” we are told.

Peace,
Ed

As opposed to faith, which is never twisted to support evil.

 

[hecd2]

Sometimes people change. But Professor Dawkins has gone a long way in promoting atheism, has a Foundation and a book for parents to teach them how to raise their kids without God.

Although that’s not true (Dawkins has written no such book) why shouldn’t he promote atheism and have a foundation? He has as much right as you have to promote his ideas about religion (and buy advertising space on buses if that takes his fancy).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[StAnastasia]

IAnd for those of you that do not know look what Eugenie Scott and Co are up to. The National Center for Science Education is making a play that with your kids in public school. They are trying to coax teachers into giving children Pastor’s and religious quotes from established Churches so they can convince kids that “even the Church accepts evolution therefore you should to”.

Buffalo, do you have a URL to where this appears on the NCSE website? Or are you talking about the Clergy Letter Project?

 

[StAnastasia]

As opposed to faith, which is never twisted to support evil.

Or to stoke the autos da fe in Counter-Reformation Spain.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. That his career is largely based around evolutionary biology might just drive Dawkins’ belligerence against various forms of Christianity (and a number of other religions) because they dispute, or wholly disbelieve that evolution occurred at all, or at least to the extent or in the way estimated by science. This, I think, is what drives Dawkins to the point of demonising religion as a whole for daring to question the word of the scripture of Darwin…

I don’t think it’s rational to consider evolution a fact. It is quite a good theory, but there are too many variables, tautologies and possibilities, assumptions and certain difficulties in the way of genuine verification methods. To raise it to this level is, I think, rather dishonest - unless you like your positivism to be scientismic, that is…

But that’s modern science for you!

 

[edwest2]

Although that’s not true (Dawkins has written no such book) why shouldn’t he promote atheism and have a foundation? He has as much right as you have to promote his ideas about religion (and buy advertising space on buses if that takes his fancy).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I’m simply lodging my complaint. My apologies about the book, it appears Professor Dawkins was promoting it but did not write it - Parenting Beyond Belief by McGowan.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Again, some people will apply those things to their agenda- they will extrapolate to the point where anything supports their ends.

We’re moving backwards- we’ve already gone over why “Man created God” and “Praise Darwin” don’t mean that evolution intrinsically supports atheism.

Alright. What is it useful for? Why should anyone spend any time thinking about it?

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

I’m simply lodging my complaint. My apologies about the book, it appears Professor Dawkins was promoting it but did not write it - Parenting Beyond Belief by McGowan.

So what’s your complaint exactly? I think a well considered book on parenting children for agnostics and atheists is at least as welcome as the piles of books on parenting children in various faith settings. You never did explain why Dawkins shouldn’t promote atheism and have a foundation?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

Look, I share your distaste for evangelical atheism.

There may be a glimmer of something good in that comment – although I wish you had something more than merely a “distaste” for that brand of atheism.

I also met Richard Dawkins last week, who expressed interest that a Catholic High School out west in California is working this year on a project called “Evolution across the curriculum.” People learn, people change.

Spreading atheism in a Catholic school. I can understand why an evangelical atheist would be friendly to that idea.

 

[hecd2]

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. That his career is largely based around evolutionary biology might just drive Dawkins’ belligerence against various forms of Christianity (and a number of other religions) because they dispute, or wholly disbelieve that evolution occurred at all, or at least to the extent or in the way estimated by science. This, I think, is what drives Dawkins to the point of demonising religion as a whole for daring to question the word of the scripture of Darwin…

Well, there are well known evolutionary biologists who are openly Christian such as Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Conway Morris, and many others. So being an evolutionary biologist is not in itself an explanation for an individual’s atheism. It seems to me that Dawkins’s understanding of biology adds fuel to his anti-religious fire, but that his worldview is informed, as it is for all of us, by more than his science. Biologists of all religious persuasions deplore the religiously inspired foolishness of Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design masquerading as science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Deplore Of course they do. When I went over to amazon to look up a few Creationist books, I ran across this in response to a positive review of a Creationist book: “You are a Christian extremist and a terrorist…” The writer went on to accuse the reviewer of being against America’s success in the global economy. This type of vitriol makes little sense, that is, until I found an article written by Isaac Asimov that reflected (with less vitriol) similar thinking. It is deplored because people might think about that word that begins with a G. Yup. Can’t have kids, especially in schools, exposed to that. A) Because they might believe it and B) turn into one of them.

Oh brother.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

Alright. What is it useful for? Why should anyone spend any time thinking about it?

Peace,
Ed

The “when will we ever use this argument”?
Knowledge of dinosaurs or Shakespeare never influences my day to day life, but I’m still glad to have learned it.

 

[StAnastasia]

Alright. What is it useful for? Why should anyone spend any time thinking about it? Peace, Ed

Ed, you remind me of Homer Simpson’s argument: “Why should Bart waste time studying the English language? When are we ever going to visit England?”

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

The “when will we ever use this argument”?
Knowledge of dinosaurs or Shakespeare never influences my day to day life, but I’m still glad to have learned it.

They both influence my daily life. Scarcely a day goes by that I don’t think of both dinosaurs and Shakespeare, or Albertus Magnus, inter alia.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well, there are well known evolutionary biologists who are openly Christian such as Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Conway Morris, and many others. So being an evolutionary biologist is not in itself an explanation for an individual’s atheism. It seems to me that Dawkins’s understanding of biology adds fuel to his anti-religious fire, but that his worldview is informed, as it is for all of us, by more than his science. Biologists of all religious persuasions deplore the religiously inspired foolishness of Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design masquerading as science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Given the absurd unlikelihood of intelligent life occuring by accident, I have to think you’d have to be more of a zealously dogmatic nutter to assume that it’s occurance by accident is a fact than that intelligent design occurred.

Science is limited to understanding only that which it can investigate - specifically, the material world. Evolution is the most workable theory there is if you work under this scientismic assumption, which dogmatists such as Dawkins would have us limited to. To grant science the exclusive right to interpret reality for us, you are already making an assumption no more or less faith driven than those of the Young Earth Creationists - except that that element of faith is somewhat disguised by being remarketing as scientific positivism.

There are many Christian scientists who believe in evolution - fair enough. Billions of pounds of public money has been spent in investigating and promoting this theory. It’s a reasonable possibility. But to declare it fact? Especially the ‘by-chance’ assumption? Scientismic dogma.

 

[rossum]

Given the absurd unlikelihood of intelligent life occuring by accident, I have to think you’d have to be more of a zealously dogmatic nutter to assume that it’s occurance by accident is a fact than that intelligent design occurred.

We can only evaluate probability calculations if you show us the mathematical model behind them. Every creationist/ID model I have seen fails to model evolution correctly because they fail to include natural selection. If your model does not include natural selection then the figures it produces are worthless - GIGO. If your model does include natural selection then show it and we can discuss it.

Science is limited to understanding only that which it can investigate - specifically, the material world.

Agreed.

Evolution is the most workable theory there is if you work under this scientismic assumption, which dogmatists such as Dawkins would have us limited to. To grant science the exclusive right to interpret reality for us, you are already making an assumption no more or less faith driven than those of the Young Earth Creationists - except that that element of faith is somewhat disguised by being remarketing as scientific positivism.

Since I do not limit myself to the material world your point is irrelevant to me. Within the material world evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the number of different species we see around us. So far ID has failed to come up with any equivalent explanation. If and when it does so we can have another look at it. Currently I agree with Philip Johnson:I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)

There are many Christian scientists who believe in evolution - fair enough. Billions of pounds of public money has been spent in investigating and promoting this theory. It’s a reasonable possibility. But to declare it fact? Especially the ‘by-chance’ assumption? Scientismic dogma.

Firstly, evolution is not “by chance”, that is a creationist strawman. Natural selection is not a chance process so evolution as a whole is not a chance process. Mutations are indeed random but they are filtered by natural selection and only a non-random subset survive. The overall process is not a chance process.

Secondly, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution-as-fact says that populations of living organisms change over time. This is a fact and has been observed many times and through many independent lines of evidence. Evolution-as-theory is the current best explanation we have as to how this observed change takes place. This explanation includes mutation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift and more. Evolution-as-theory can change. In the 1930s Mendelian genetics was added to Darwin’s original theory to produce what was known as the “Modern Synthesis”. Gould and Eldredge’s Punctuated Equilibrium has also been incorporated into the theory.

We have the same situation with gravity. Gravity-as-fact tells us that things fall down. Gravity-as-theory is our current best explanation for how they do it. At the moment that is that mass warps space and so alters the paths that other objects take. Gravity-as-theory has changed, at one time it used to be Newton’s theory while now we use Einstein’s theory. In future it will change again to a theory of Quantum Gravity as we already know that Einstein’s theory is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

Given the absurd unlikelihood of intelligent life occuring by accident, I have to think you’d have to be more of a zealously dogmatic nutter to assume that it’s occurance by accident is a fact than that intelligent design occurred.

Science is limited to understanding only that which it can investigate - specifically, the material world. Evolution is the most workable theory there is if you work under this scientismic assumption, which dogmatists such as Dawkins would have us limited to. To grant science the exclusive right to interpret reality for us, you are already making an assumption no more or less faith driven than those of the Young Earth Creationists - except that that element of faith is somewhat disguised by being remarketing as scientific positivism.

There are many Christian scientists who believe in evolution - fair enough. Billions of pounds of public money has been spent in investigating and promoting this theory. It’s a reasonable possibility. But to declare it fact? Especially the ‘by-chance’ assumption? Scientismic dogma.

Rossum has already given you a reply that is patient and comprehensive and I won’t repeat what he has said. It seems to me however that your diatribe against you mistakenly consider to be evolutionary theory was not relevant to my post which made the point that being an evolutionary biologist is not itself the sole reason to be an atheist, even for Dawkins.

As for whether science is the pre-eminent method for gaining knowledge about reality, well its pre-eminence arises from its historical efficacy, which other methods of seeking knowledge demonstrably lack. What discipline other than science could one possibly turn to if one wants to learn something about the processes by which the diversity of biological species that we observe about us came to be?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Buffalo, if you really wanted to argue for Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism on its own merits, you wouldn’t make the theory of evolution your whipping boy. But because your theory has no merit in the eyes of working scientists, you stoop to belaboring tirelessly the only working theory in town.

If you think it has merits, make the case to the academy, not only to fellow evolution-haters on an Internet forum. Do the research. Write and publish research articles. Present papers at professional meetings. That’s the way to get your message heard as a biology professional that evolution is a dying and unfruitful theory.

Exactly,

PS. I fail to see how he can know the merrits of a subject he knows nothing about.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, do you have a URL to where this appears on the NCSE website? Or are you talking about the Clergy Letter Project?

Is Darwinian Evolution Compatible with Religion?

Is Darwinian evolution compatible with faith in God? The nation’s preeminent pro-evolution lobbying group, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), would have people believe that the answer is a resounding “Yes.” In recent years, the NCSE has spearheaded a PR campaign to convince religious believers that evolution and religion are compatible. **On a taxpayer-funded website that the NCSE helped design, teachers and students are directed to a list of statements by religious groups endorsing evolution, and Eugenie Scott, the group’s executive director, encourages biology teachers to spend class time having students read statements by religious leaders supporting evolution. Scott even suggests that students be assigned to interview local ministers about their views on evolution—but not if the community is “conservative Christian,” because then the lesson that “Evolution is OK!” may not come through.**2

**The NCSE’s effort to inject religion into public school science classes in order to promote evolution is a remarkable act of chutzpah for an organization that routinely chastises “antievolutionists” for supposedly trying to insert “religion” into science classes. Apparently, religion in biology class is OK so long as it is used to endorse Darwin’s theory.

more…**

 

[Mystic_Banana]

We can only evaluate probability calculations if you show us the mathematical model behind them. Every creationist/ID model I have seen fails to model evolution correctly because they fail to include natural selection. If your model does not include natural selection then the figures it produces are worthless - GIGO. If your model does include natural selection then show it and we can discuss it.

Agreed.

Since I do not limit myself to the material world your point is irrelevant to me. Within the material world evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the number of different species we see around us. So far ID has failed to come up with any equivalent explanation. If and when it does so we can have another look at it. Currently I agree with Philip Johnson:I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)

I’m not talking about some young Earth creationist model - I’m talking about the evolutionary model. Factoring in the possibility of life popping into existence for no reason in the first place, the right kind of planet circling the right kind of sun, all the way back to the Flying Spaghetti Monsters - sorry, other universes (or whatever it’s supposed to be - Memes?) - bumping into each other in the first place to kick start a big bang

Firstly, evolution is not “by chance”, that is a creationist strawman. Natural selection is not a chance process so evolution as a whole is not a chance process. Mutations are indeed random but they are filtered by natural selection and only a non-random subset survive. The overall process is not a chance process.

Secondly, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution-as-fact says that populations of living organisms change over time. This is a fact and has been observed many times and through many independent lines of evidence. Evolution-as-theory is the current best explanation we have as to how this observed change takes place. This explanation includes mutation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift and more. Evolution-as-theory can change. In the 1930s Mendelian genetics was added to Darwin’s original theory to produce what was known as the “Modern Synthesis”. Gould and Eldredge’s Punctuated Equilibrium has also been incorporated into the theory.

We have the same situation with gravity. Gravity-as-fact tells us that things fall down. Gravity-as-theory is our current best explanation for how they do it. At the moment that is that mass warps space and so alters the paths that other objects take. Gravity-as-theory has changed, at one time it used to be Newton’s theory while now we use Einstein’s theory. In future it will change again to a theory of Quantum Gravity as we already know that Einstein’s theory is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.

rossum

Natural selection is not selection at all - selection implies intelligent determination - unless you want to go for a kind of pantheistic interpretation, at which point you are still beginning to point towards intelligent design