Evolution In The Classroom

[tjm190]

Regarding the dating mentioned by the other poster, see my reply to him.

Regarding evolution as not being science, this is like saying plate tectonics is not science, or that cosmology is not science. The amount of evidence for evolution is simply so large that it’s nearly impossible to ignore. Is it any wonder that the only ones that don’t accept it also accept a theory along the lines of creationism?

If you’d like to hear a Roman Catholic biologist discuss why ID has been quite literally proven wrong to the point that a conservative Christian judge found it to be a farce, and also about some of the glaring evidence for evolution, feel free to watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

I wasn’t seeking to disagree with you, but given that evolution is generally presented in a retrospective manner, it is technically history rather than science- as I said though, since the mechanics of evolution what we are truly interested in (e.g. it’s not the fact that evolution occurred, but how that is being taught), the science class is where evolution should be taught

 

[liquidpele]

If you need a demonstration of micro evolution Aids or HIV it changes form. If you need a demonstration of macro evolution nylonase the Nylon-eating bacteria it is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6. Look at nylonase DNA it is a new form of life.

He’ll just say “they’re still bacteria though”. Ed’s understanding of the subject is skewed and won’t change, he’s already made up his mind. Unless he sees evidence of a bacteria turning into a fish in the lab, he likely won’t be convinced.

To add onto your excellent example though, I find the best evidence for what is called “macro evolution” (which is the same thing as micro, just a different timescale) is to look at the study of taxonomy. The descent becomes blatantly obvious.

youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

 

[liquidpele]

I wasn’t seeking to disagree with you, but given that evolution is generally presented in a retrospective manner, it is technically history rather than science- as I said though, since the mechanics of evolution what we are truly interested in (e.g. it’s not the fact that evolution occurred, but how that is being taught), the science class is where evolution should be taught

While a lot of it deals with the past, don’t forget that the workings of evolution are used in current science as well. Just as a for instance, keeping up with flu vaccines uses evolutionary understanding quite a bit. H1N1 for instance is a combination of swine flu, 2 strains of human flu, and bird flu. Other obvious uses are in the medical field regarding stem cell research and any of the many genetic diseases. Genetic and evolving algorithms have even become very useful in the computer sciences (mostly game AI currently though).

Even if you rejected those uses, science is about studying the natural world, and I think studying how life evolved and changed over time fits perfectly into this definition along with geology, cosmology, palaeontology, anthropology, etc.

 

[kk23wong]

Here are some excerpts from biology textbooks giving us some insight on the compulsory, state-sponsored, taxpayer-funded atheism that is promoted in science class:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Evolution is not by random. Natural selections.

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

Evolution is an incomplete theory. It does not necessarily FALSE. Evolution is a NATURAL process of GROWTH of the planet itself. Living organisms do not FLY from OUTTER SPACE.

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

An ultimate “GOAL” derived from our minds (Thinking generated from our brains). A goal established by our DESIRES for a everlasting achievement by our life. As I used to say, “Our world consists of Minds (thinking), Emotion, Desires, Live & Death (natural process of life).” Desires and differences in the forms of lives created imagination. Thus, any illustration of an ultimate goal is a PERSONAL comment. In which, it cannot become an universal standard. Philosophers have to find another way out. Instead of insisting the OLD SCHOOL THINKING (mistakes in the past), why not make ourselves REAL?

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future.Old School Thinking? Natural selections for adapting to natural environment INSIDE the planet. We are self-oriented because of the presence of our BRAINS. Indeed, it divided “animals” (with the presence of brains) as the REPRODUCTION(offspring of the planet) from the plants (without the presence of brains) as the organic living tissues. In the meantime, Reproduction inside a planet (a living thing) is also included in her LIFE CYCLES. Levels of lives decided the form of presences. Evolution is the process of GROWTH of the planet itself (both “plants” and “animals”).

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that **evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity **having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. **The Darwinian view **that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, **contradicted the common religious view **that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. “The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary …“Nevertheless, **faith in religious dogma has been eroded **by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”
(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)

Creation by Birth. Design because she (the God/ a Conscious Earth) is always be with us. Decisions made by BOTH. As I used to say, “Destiny from the God. Fates are in our hands.”

(Most) Religions are concepts of the God (a Conscious Earth). Differences of the presences (different form of lives) create imagination. Manipulation of her gifted power from BIRTH to turn the world (the Earth) into her ideals. Religions are the heritages (as well as both the God and our ancestor). We are a family from biological prospective. In another word, it is a FACT.

The End will never be an END.

Teru Wong

 

[StAnastasia]

By the way, welcome to the forum. Please keep in mind, the philosophy section here tends to be dominated by atheists who freely (and endlessly) offer their opinions against belief in God and the Catholic Faith. So, if you’re looking for advice, or even a reasonable discussion from a Catholic perspective, you’ll have to filter out a lot of irrelevant garbage along the way. If you want to try to get through to atheists, however, that’s a different kind of challenge.

You’re lying again. Most of the people on the evolution forum are Catholics, and most of the atheists are polite, and don’t try to convert us Catholics to atheism.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Geez, are aetheists always this cranky when somebody questions Darwinism? Mr Gearhead…you say that if a teacher says there is no God then it’s wrong. Is it okay then to imply there is no God through the teachings of Darwinism? What does the biology teacher say to the student, if he/she asks directly, if Darwin is saying there is no God?

I will have to disagree with you on science proving Darwin more correct as time goes on. The book, The Case For A Creator, seems to show your theory is getting debunked by modern day science. Please read the book and let me know what you think. The author, Lee Strobel, used to be an aetheist too until he did some investigating.

I’m sorry i don’t mean to be rude, but are you a teacher? Did you never learn about peer review at university? Lee Strobel is not a scientist, why not just leave science to the scientists? There is a very good reason why design is not taught in science, it is not science.

Science class is not a democracy… The kids are not fit to make up their own minds on a subject they know nothing about. We don’t teach kids all kinds of different positions then let them pick which one they like the best. Shale we start teaching kids the world is flat too, let them decide?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

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.

This is 100% correct.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

I have to say the one of the worst arguments of all is the “its still a bacteria…”

It shows a lack of even the most basic scientific knowledge. Being that bacteria is a domain it is the same as saying but its still a Eukarya. Therefore they must have no issue with us sharing a common ancestor with apes for we are all still Eukaryotes.

Oh and it would not still be a “bacteria”, it would still be a bacterium.

 

[buffalo]

Regarding the dating mentioned by the other poster, see my reply to him.

Regarding evolution as not being science, this is like saying plate tectonics is not science, or that cosmology is not science. The amount of evidence for evolution is simply so large that it’s nearly impossible to ignore. Is it any wonder that the only ones that don’t accept it also accept a theory along the lines of creationism?

If you’d like to hear a Roman Catholic biologist discuss why ID has been quite literally proven wrong to the point that a conservative Christian judge found it to be a farce, and also about some of the glaring evidence for evolution, feel free to watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Are any scientists studying the supernatural?

Sure, if I only pick the marbles that say evolution from the box of marbles I will assemble quite a case that the box only contains evolution. Why can’t you see that the a priori exclusion of other marbles contaminates the interpretations? It makes the pronouncements untrustworthy.

 

[buffalo]

If you need a demonstration of micro evolution Aids or HIV it changes form. If you need a demonstration of macro evolution nylonase the Nylon-eating bacteria it is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6. Look at nylonase DNA it is a new form of life.

It is now known that the bacteria of DNA have a built in latent capablilty. Also bacteria quickly exchange this information and simply adapt. What is the chemical makeup of nylonase? Perhaps a new combination of existing elements?

 

[buffalo]

I wasn’t seeking to disagree with you, but given that evolution is generally presented in a retrospective manner, it is technically history rather than science- as I said though, since the mechanics of evolution what we are truly interested in (e.g. it’s not the fact that evolution occurred, but how that is being taught), the science class is where evolution should be taught

If science class is “pursuit of knowledge” class then OK. But then other things should be allowed in. If you want to restrict it to empirical science then the philosophy of evolution is out?

Pick one.

 

[gearhead]

Are any scientists studying the supernatural?

What would you call “supernatural”?

Sure, if I only pick the marbles that say evolution from the box of marbles I will assemble quite a case that the box only contains evolution. Why can’t you see that the a priori exclusion of other marbles contaminates the interpretations? It makes the pronouncements untrustworthy.

That’s not what’s happening.

To run with your metaphor a bit, scientists pick marbles that say “life” from the box. “Evolution” is the term they used to describe what they saw when they looked at how all the marbles they picked work together.

But just to play along, what other “marbles” do you think the scientific community has excluded?

 

[buffalo]

I’m sorry i don’t mean to be rude, but are you a teacher? Did you never learn about peer review at university? Lee Strobel is not a scientist, why not just leave science to the scientists? There is a very good reason why design is not taught in science, it is not science.

Science class is not a democracy… The kids are not fit to make up their own minds on a subject they know nothing about. We don’t teach kids all kinds of different positions then let them pick which one they like the best. Shale we start teaching kids the world is flat too, let them decide?

Peer Review Failure?

 

[gearhead]

If science class is “pursuit of knowledge” class then OK. But then other things should be allowed in. If you want to restrict it to empirical science then the philosophy of evolution is out?

Why would that be?

Evolution follows the standard scientific model. Its claims are falsifiable, testable and repeatable. Why would you say it’s not empirical science?

 

[reggieM]

(Most) Religions are concepts of the God (a Conscious Earth). Differences of the presences (different form of lives) create imagination. Manipulation of her gifted power from BIRTH to turn the world (the Earth) into her ideals. Religions are the heritages (as well as both the God and our ancestor). We are a family from biological prospective. In another word, it is a FACT. The End will never be an END.

In Catholic thought, it’s true that the End will never be an End in metaphysical terms. Religion also is a concept of God – its the methodology He created to bind his people to the divine presence.

If the earth itself is conscious, then that’s obviously a refutation of Darwinian theory which claims that mutations are random and unguided (as the quotes from biology texts I posted show with abundant clarity). The earth would obviously direct any changes and developments in nature. The imagination of the earth (as you describe it) would turn the world into the ideals of God. This is a form of creationism – of the kind that Darwin strove to destroy.

If we are both God and the ancestors of God, then we should worship ourselves and praise everything we do as being the best possible thing. Whether we improve or destroy things (nature, other humans, etc), it’s all irrelevant since we are God and we always do what is right.

But importantly, if earth is the source of consciousness and matter itself is conscious, then it could not have become so by it’s Birth. Something preceeding the birth of the conscious-Earth would have to confer consciousness on it.

That Something is what we call God. Whatever consciousness or intelligence exists on earth or in God’s creatures takes its source from Him.

I would like to see the evolutionary-scientific evidence that shows that the Earth is conscious.

Perhaps it could be classified in those parts of evolutionary science that teach authoritatively that “evolution is the product of blind, unintelligent, unconscious, undirected and purposeless natural forces, but it is not random”.

There are other important evolutionary truths that go along with the FACT that the earth is conscious are:

• we make ourselves real,
• we are God and God’s ancestors,
• evolutionary theory is incoherent, absurd and contradictory but it is not false,
• there are no gaps or problems in evolutionary theory that an active imagination cannot fix
• people who disagree with evolutionists do not know anything about science
• there are no credible scientists who disagree with evolutionary claims because if they did they wouldn’t be credible
• when evolutionists contradict each other they are 100% correct or else they didn’t really oppose each other after all

and more as you described …

• differences in the forms of lives created imagination
• self-orientation is the product of one’s brain
• fate is in our hands

and most importantly …

• we should disagree with what all of those biology texts stated while affirming that they are 100% correct (and opposing anyone who disagrees with them).

All of this provides a bit more evidence that evolution is more certain than gravity.

 

[buffalo]

Why would that be?

Evolution follows the standard scientific model. Its claims are falsifiable, testable and repeatable. Why would you say it’s not empirical science?

Any experiments that prove it?

 

[reggieM]

Peer Review Failure?

One evolutionist claims that the peer-reviewed work of another evolutionist is “totally unsupported”:

[from the posted link] A new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencee makes the bizarre and completely unsupported claim that the two stages of the butterfly life cycle: caterpillar and volant adult, result from a hybridization event, with the caterpillar resulting from a butterfly mistakingly mating with an onycophoran (velvet worm). Instead of a single lineage evolving two different life stages, then, each stage reflects a completely independent evolutionary event.,

The only problem that Jerry Coyne has here is that he actually takes evolutionary claims seriously enough to think that they need to be supported by some facts.

He should know that as long as it’s a conjecture that generally supports atheistic-evolutionary processes, it should pass through peer-review quite easily. Scientists can be free to disagree about the paper later because “that’s the way science works”.

Perhaps along with peer-review, evolutionists should come up with a rating system for their papers. Then they could vote about the certainty of the facts presented.

In this case, on a five-star scale, Jerry Coyne would rate this a 1. He’d probably say that he “wishes they had a zero-star rating”. It’s the “worst paper of the year” according to him. (I’d like to see his top-ten worst for 2009).

But perhaps with some strong support from other scientists, the paper could get at least 3 stars. I think at least that much of a popular vote should be necessary to prove any evolutionary claim true. Of course 5 stars means that it’s “a super-deluxe certain fact” which will last at least 3 years before being refuted.

 

[gearhead]

Any experiments that prove it?

You don’t know what science is, do you?

 

[buffalo]

You don’t know what science is, do you?

I guess I need help. Please share with me the definition of science as well as the definition of empirical science. And for all the other folks list the steps of the scientific method.

 

[StAnastasia]

It not mentioning God makes it technically atheistic in the sense that it doesn’t mention God, but not in the sense that is meaningful.

Liquipele, I bake mince tarts for my sons for Christmas. When doing so I do not invoke God to maintain the oven at 350 degrees. By a YECs account, I am an atheist for trusting the laws of nature to govern my baking.