Evolution In The Classroom

[tjm190]

I think it probably has been…

In a universe generated by chance, the ratios of the four fundamental forces would presumably also be generated by chance.

In an undesigned Universe, where are the laws of physics supposed to come from, anyway? Why is there any constancy to them in the first place?

Of course, this would just result in life being even more unlikely to occur by chance, wouldn’t it?

Howsat?

Again, you’re taking the chance part of evolution and applying it to other areas- talk of chance generally doesn’t enter talk of the big bang.

 

[rossum]

The fact remains that God has boxed in science in such a way that it can never prove abiogenesis by accident.

Congratulations, you have correctly understood the nature of scientific knowledge. Scientific theories can never be proved. “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.” All scientific theories are provisional and may later be replaced by a better theory. Newton’s theory of gravity was never proved and was replaced by Einstein’s theory. In its turn Einstein’s theory is not proved and will be replaced by a theory of Quantum gravity once we have one.

Therefore, when discussing evolution in the classroom,

This topic should already have been covered right at the start of the science class. All scientific theories are provisional, evolution included. The class shouuld already be aware of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge so there would be no need to repeat it.

If anything, the mathematical probability that such a randomly based event could have occurred is extremely remote.

Please show your calculations that allow you to draw this conclusions. You would not want children taught anything based on incorrect calculations or faulty models would you.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Very well, but I deny the holocaust, the moon landing, anything opposed to geocentric theory, I believe Tupac is still alive, and I’m a 9/11 conspiracy theorist- I want students to hear ‘both sides’ of all of these issues and draw their own conclusions.

.

That is why teaching philosophy and how to parse the arguments is really important.

 

[tjm190]

That is why teaching philosophy and how to parse the arguments is really important.

But you admit, someone holding those beliefs has just as much of a right to have ‘both sides taught’ as ID proponents?

 

[buffalo]

But you admit, someone holding those beliefs has just as much of a right to have ‘both sides taught’ as ID proponents?

I am not following. Explain.

 

[tjm190]

I am not following. Explain.

You have your own belief about speciation and you want your beliefs to be represented.

I have my own beliefs, since I deny the holocaust, the moon landing, anything opposed to geocentric theory, I believe Tupac is still alive, and I’m a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and I want my reliefs to be represented.

All of ‘my’ beliefs have some validity to them and evidence for them, but are generally disregarded by the community at large since the vast majority of the evidence points towards the opposite conclusion. Even so, I want both sides represented.

 

[buffalo]

You have your own belief about speciation and you want your beliefs to be represented.

I have my own beliefs, since I deny the holocaust, the moon landing, anything opposed to geocentric theory, I believe Tupac is still alive, and I’m a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and I want my reliefs to be represented.

All of ‘my’ beliefs have some validity to them and evidence for them, but are generally disregarded by the community at large since the vast majority of the evidence points towards the opposite conclusion. Even so, I want both sides represented.

OK.

Some of these things are history so they do not belong in science class anyway.

This is where it gets sticky. Depending on the viewpoint of the author clever writing in textbooks can have students come away with confusing consensus with truth. I believe that is dangerous as well as self perpetuating.

A proper treatment would argue both sides with the evidence. If there is no evidence it cannot be admitted. We have more evidence that design is part of reality than evolution. You believe that because something is popular it should get the exposure.

We were teaching that no megaflood occurred even though it is now agreed it did. One man held the position against all the others. He was discredited, but in the end was right.

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Well, what is missing is that if we choose to cover the origin in the classroom, we would not know were to start. There are more origin stories out there than days of the year. Since this is the US, we cannot just choose one religion. We are going to have to cover every single one to make it equal, or we would end up going against the constitution, and also having to make athiests happy and find another story just for them. It’s opening up a can of worms that will just bring on more problems.

Keep religion out of the classroom and at church. Since everyone who pays taxes will want there origin story to be in the classroom, if we teach about one origin theory, we will have to talk about another and another. (keep adding another till you get the point).

Bacteria changing genes with each other is a great ability. But, that whole idea cannot disprove evolution because it has been shown when a single bacteria is allowed to divide. Then after there is a great number of bacteria antibiotics are added, most are killed. The ones that survived end up having a mutation, that allowed it to survive the antibiotic and will continue to divide. Then when antibiotic is added once again, most will end up surviving. (this experiment was repeated until a bacteria survived the initial dose of antibiotics, all becuase they get mutations, chances are that they won’t be in the position that they would be helpful.)

This was done in a sterile evironment, where only THAT bacteria was present, so the whole gene swaping theory cannot come into play. AND please don’t say they survived becuase they could. please please.

Theorie’s keep changing and changing. Ampere’s ended up getting a fix by maxwell. And when that theory is used in quantum other fixes were added. The more we learn the more questions pop up like a monster in a little kid’s nightmare. So, all becuase it’s a theory dont say it shouldn’t be in the classroom, or else there wouldn’t be any physics class or, Biology classes. Okay there wouldn’t be most scientific classes.

 

[tjm190]

OK.

Some of these things are history so they do not belong in science class anyway.

This is where it gets sticky. Depending on the viewpoint of the author clever writing in textbooks can have students come away with confusing consensus with truth. I believe that is dangerous as well as self perpetuating. .

If the mere presence of contradictary evidence means it must be taught to students, the subject area is irrelevant.

A proper treatment would argue both sides with the evidence. If there is no evidence it cannot be admitted. We have more evidence that design is part of reality than evolution. You believe that because something is popular it should get the exposure.

First- there is no strong evidence for design. Irreducible complexity is debunked at every turn. Quite the opposite for your final sentence- even if 85% of the populace doubted the moon landing, the holocaust, or evolution I’d be against teaching it.

We were teaching that no megaflood occurred even though it is now agreed it did. One man held the position against all the others. He was discredited, but in the end was right.

It is agreed that there was a large scale regional flood after the ice age if that’s what you mean.

 

[buffalo]

If the mere presence of contradictary evidence means it must be taught to students, the subject area is irrelevant.

First- there is no strong evidence for design. Irreducible complexity is debunked at every turn. Quite the opposite for your final sentence- even if 85% of the populace doubted the moon landing, the holocaust, or evolution I’d be against teaching it.

It is agreed that there was a large scale regional flood after the ice age if that’s what you mean.

Does design exist?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Again, you’re taking the chance part of evolution and applying it to other areas- talk of chance generally doesn’t enter talk of the big bang.

All these things would be neccesary - it’s a lengthy chain of events that are require for life to exist, and a Universe is part of it…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Yes.Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates.

Source: Powner et al 2009
That is a single fact, relevant to abiogenesis. That single fact on its own is more than creationism has.

rossum

Not quite true, that, is it? It’s relevant to the theory of abiogenesis. If abiogenesis is not a fact, it has no relevance whatsoever.

One may as well argue “everything said to be created by creationists exists” or “look - I have an Adams Apple!!!” or “but snakes do crawl on their bellies!”

 

[tjm190]

Does design exist?

Oh boy, the non sequitur game!

 

[tjm190]

All these things would be neccesary - it’s a lengthy chain of events that are require for life to exist, and a Universe is part of it…

And the theory of evolution deals with a small subset of them.

 

[rossum]

Not quite true, that, is it? It’s relevant to the theory of abiogenesis. If abiogenesis is not a fact, it has no relevance whatsoever.

Please name one living organism that does not contain pyrimidines.

Fact: every single living organism from viruses on up uses pyrimidines. Fact: DNA uses four bases, ACGT. Fact: C (cytosine) and T (thymine) are pyrimidines. Fact: in RNA thymine (T) is replaced by uracil (U), also a pyrimidine.

How are half the components of DNA and RNA not relevant to the origin of life?

rossum

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Please name one living organism that does not contain pyrimidines.

Fact: every single living organism from viruses on up uses pyrimidines. Fact: DNA uses four bases, ACGT. Fact: C (cytosine) and T (thymine) are pyrimidines. Fact: in RNA thymine (T) is replaced by uracil (U), also a pyrimidine.

How are half the components of DNA and RNA not relevant to the origin of life?

rossum

It is not an issue of whether they are relevant to the origin of life, but whether they truly prove absolute evolution (since, unless I’m mistaken, we’re now cheerfully sneaking towards a creationist vs evolutionist argument )

 

[buffalo]

Oh boy, the non sequitur game!

We know it does so we go to the next step.

How do we process observations and determine if they are designed or natural?

 

[rossum]

It is not an issue of whether they are relevant to the origin of life, but whether they truly prove absolute evolution (since, unless I’m mistaken, we’re now cheerfully sneaking towards a creationist vs evolutionist argument )

You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution. The prebiotic (that is pre-life) synthesis of pyrimidines is extremely important to abiogenesis. If you look back to your post #944 you will see that you were asking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

There is no absolute proof in science; if you want absolute proof then you need mathematics, not science. Since we do not know everything about the universe all scientific theories are provisional, not absolute.

There is more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for direct creation of life.

There is more evidence for evolution than there is for YEC in the origin of species.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution. The prebiotic (that is pre-life) synthesis of pyrimidines is extremely important to abiogenesis. If you look back to your post #944 you will see that you were asking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

There is no absolute proof in science; if you want absolute proof then you need mathematics, not science. Since we do not know everything about the universe all scientific theories are provisional, not absolute.

There is more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for direct creation of life.

There is more evidence for evolution than there is for YEC in the origin of species.

rossum

The Catholic Church has divine revelation, which gives us true answers. If you don’t want to accept that, fine. However, that is the Catholic Answer. There are too many anomolies to accept evolution at face value. Second, what should be obvious to all Catholics here is the ongoing propaganda campaign to spread the story of evolution. If a process like it occurred, and I am convinced scientists do not understand it very well, then it was guided by God infallibly.

It should also be made clear to all Catholics reading this that textbook evolution is incomplete. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ must be part of the equation. Who did He die for? Why was He born? What is man’s actual identity?

Evolution is presented as 100% fact. It is not. It is a partial glimpse modified by a dogmatic belief system.

Science is not to be worshipped or fully trusted. Once again, the constant presentations here to ‘just say yes’ are proof the goal is not education but indoctrination. To distract many to the mind of mind, and to ignore the truths of God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mystic_Banana]

You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution. The prebiotic (that is pre-life) synthesis of pyrimidines is extremely important to abiogenesis. If you look back to your post #944 you will see that you were asking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

There is no absolute proof in science; if you want absolute proof then you need mathematics, not science. Since we do not know everything about the universe all scientific theories are provisional, not absolute.

There is more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for direct creation of life.

There is more evidence for evolution than there is for YEC in the origin of species.

rossum

Regarding creationism, incidentally, I think I’d be inclined to ditch any YE element… or at least a VYE hypothesis - or any set dating at all - but then, I’d do the same with evolutionism…

OK - you’re explaining the constitution of knowledge and proof. I’d extend this to admitting Evolution is not a fact, but rather ‘closest we can get using current scientific investigative methods, which admittedly has only really gone along this singular path (heavily regulated by a rather dogmatic Darwinism) for rather a long time’.

The physical sciences do not describe the limits of our knowledge, understanding and reasoned assessment of the world. It is a singular method of investigation. That it is accepted as such is no more limiting than interpreting the world exclusively theologically.

In other words, I see the general evolution-by-chance argument as being just as dogmatic as Young Earth Creationism.

I have to say, it’s good to see someone arguing for evolution to actually admit the elusiveness of absolute knowledge…