Evolution In The Classroom

[buffalo]

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

You are the one who made the claim but now you won’t back it up.

But I will help for the benefit of others:

The Gospel according to Darwin
There is scant reporting on the anti-religious zeal with which many atheists promote Darwinism.

Darwin Day celebrations are fascinating because they expose a side of the controversy over evolution in America that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. **Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of unguided evolution, they almost never discuss the anti-religious mindset that motivates many of evolution’s staunchest defenders. **

On the few occasions when the anti-religious agenda of someone like Dawkins is even raised, it is usually downplayed as unrepresentative of most Darwinists.
What Darwin Day shows, however, is just how ordinary the anti-religious views expressed by Dawkins are among grassroots Darwinists. **Far from being on the fringe, Dawkins’ views form the ideological core of mainstream Darwinism. **

**Not that this should come as a shock. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics. A look at the major critics of the theory of intelligent design reveals similar views. Barbara Forrest, co-author of the anti-intelligent design harangue Creationism’s Trojan Horse, is a long-time activist and board member with a group calling itself the “New Orleans Secular Humanist Association,” although she fails to disclose that fact in her book, and reporters studiously avoid asking her about her own religious beliefs. **

The anti-religious outlook of many of Darwin’s chief boosters exposes the hypocrisy in current discussions over Darwin’s theory. The usual complaint raised against scientists who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory is that many of them (like the vast majority of Americans) happen to believe in God. It is insinuated that this fact somehow undermines the validity of their scientific views. Yet, at the same time, defenders of Darwinism insist that their own rejection of religion is irrelevant to the validity of their scientific views—and most reporters seem to agree.

more…

StA you fit right into this. So 95,000 of Darwinist biologists are atheists or agnostics. See a correlation? Dare you question this?

 

[pzona]

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.

Very well put. I’m not against the teaching of ID in schools, but science class is not the place for it. ID is a relevant idea, if for no other reason than that it is a significant part of our culture.

 

[StAnastasia]

You are the one who made the claim but now you won’t back it up…StA you fit right into this. So 95,000 of Darwinist biologists are atheists or agnostics. See a correlation? Dare you question this?

Buffalo, you make no sense. My point is that IDC and YEC are not taken seriously by working scientists, because it is not science. You’re the one who keeps derailing this discussion by bringing up surveys of scientists who don’t believe in God.

If you want people to believe in God, get off your backside and go out and evangelize, rather than trying to push scientific knowledge back to the Middle Ages!

StAnastasia

 

[carinapir]

Buffalo, you make no sense. My point is that IDC and YEC are not taken seriously by working scientists, because it is not science. You’re the one who keeps derailing this discussion by bringing up surveys of scientists who don’t believe in God.

If you want people to believe in God, get off your backside and go out and evangelize, rather than trying to push scientific knowledge back to the Middle Ages!

StAnastasia

Amen! You can’t just point a finger at the theory of evolution and say “see, since athiests believe in it, it must be tainted and wrong!” That’s a ridiculous argument.

 

[buffalo]

Amen! You can’t just point a finger at the theory of evolution and say “see, since athiests believe in it, it must be tainted and wrong!” That’s a ridiculous argument.

Perhaps not - but it does beg the question. Were they atheist before of after?

If before - then they may be biased their conclusions.
If after - then they may now bias their conclusions.

StA is the one using the argument of popularity every 10 posts or so. It must be right because 1000000 working biologists accept it who by the way are 95% atheists.

Now this 95% are atheists only occurs in the biological sciences. One has to wonder why?

I usually don’t argue this but since StA keeps pushing it it is time to show the correlation.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, you make no sense. My point is that IDC and YEC are not taken seriously by working scientists, because it is not science. You’re the one who keeps derailing this discussion by bringing up surveys of scientists who don’t believe in God.

If you want people to believe in God, get off your backside and go out and evangelize, rather than trying to push scientific knowledge back to the Middle Ages!

StAnastasia

Let us examine this.

Science - the pursuit of knowledge. So ID is science as it is the pursuit of knowledge.

Is it empirical science? It is empirical science when the test for design can be testable, repeatable and predictable.

Any idea when evolution will meet these criteria?

you - “If you want people to believe in God, get off your backside and go out and evangelize, rather than trying to push scientific knowledge back to the Middle Ages!”

Me - do you know I do not do this? How on earth is investigating ID (pursuing knowledge) going back to the Middle Ages? We know design exists. Why can’t we investigate it?

 

[carinapir]

Perhaps not - but it does beg the question. Were they atheist before of after?

If before - then they may be biased their conclusions.
If after - then they may now bias their conclusions.

StA is the one using the argument of popularity every 10 posts or so. It must be right because 1000000 working biologists accept it who by the way are 95% atheists.

Now this 95% are atheists only occurs in the biological sciences. One has to wonder why?

I usually don’t argue this but since StA keeps pushing it it is time to show the correlation.

You must make a distinction between evolution as a scientific theory and the theological assertions that some scientists make based on their understanding of that theory. Scientific conclusions should, by definition, be objective. A scientist’s personal conclusions about the existence of God based on science are not objective. I don’t necessarily disagree with you that some wording in textbooks should be changed, however the fact that some scientists, or even let’s say most scientists, look at evolution and see evidence for no God is not a reason to try to find reasons to debunk the entire theory.

The fact that living organisms change over time is a fact. Why try to fight that? A religious people we should claim it for ourselves away from the atheists, not rail against it. I believe that you are fighting the wrong battle.

In the article I posted today by Cardinal Schönborn he says the following:

“But human reason is much more than just positivistic “scientific” knowledge. Indeed, true science is impossible unless we first grasp the reality of natures and essences, the intelligible principles of the natural world. We can with much profit study nature using the tools and techniques of modern science. But let us never forget, as some modern scientists have forgotten, that the study of reality via reductive methods leads to incomplete knowledge. To grasp reality as it is, we must return to our pre-scientific and post-scientific knowledge, the tacit knowledge that pervades science, the knowledge that, when critically examined and refined, we call philosophy.”

To me this helps to explain why some scientists tend to not recognize God in science. It is not that they are willful atheists but that the language of science itself can make it easy to forget the outside world and philosophy. We need both science and philosophy to explain our world and God. Scientists are therefore not plotting to destroy religion, they are, let’s say, not using all of their brain to tackle the question of whether God exists. However, scientists are not all capable of being great philosophers, so to look to them for both scientific knowledge and philosophical understanding is not fair.

 

[StAnastasia]

Amen! You can’t just point a finger at the theory of evolution and say “see, since athiests believe in it, it must be tainted and wrong!” That’s a ridiculous argument.

Carinapir, YECs and IDCs are slippery like eels. They simply can’t accept that many Catholics – including scientists, some of whom are priests – accept an account of the universe as ancient, dynamic, and evolving.

And the roadblocks they throw up are constantly shifting, from “evolution = atheism” to “the magisterium says you have to accept a literal Adam and Eve,” to “evolution leads to Nazi eugenics,” to “it’s a theory in crisis,” to “lots of scientists are abandoning evolution,” to “teach the controversy.”

My Catholic biologist friends rise above this, or are unaware it is happening because they don’t read posts on Catholic answers.

 

[Greebus]

So then since Alchemy and Astrology are both the pursuit of knowledge they are science? There is another subject that starts with an “I” that usually will be found grouped with the above two. Can you guess what it is?

 

[StAnastasia]

Me - do you know I do not do this? How on earth is investigating ID (pursuing knowledge) going back to the Middle Ages? We know design exists. Why can’t we investigate it?

If you suspended your fruitless attack on science you would have more time to spread the gospel.

 

[StAnastasia]

So then since Alchemy and Astrology are both the pursuit of knowledge they are science? There is another subject that starts with an “I” that usually will be found grouped with the above two. Can you guess what it is?

Numerology and magic are also the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[buffalo]

You must make a distinction between evolution as a scientific theory and the theological assertions that some scientists make based on their understanding of that theory. Scientific conclusions should, by definition, be objective. A scientist’s personal conclusions about the existence of God based on science are not objective. I don’t necessarily disagree with you that some wording in textbooks should be changed, however the fact that some scientists, or even let’s say most scientists, look at evolution and see evidence for no God is not a reason to try to find reasons to debunk the entire theory.

The fact that living organisms change over time is a fact. Why try to fight that? A religious people we should claim it for ourselves away from the atheists, not rail against it. I believe that you are fighting the wrong battle.

In the article I posted today by Cardinal Schönborn he says the following:

“But human reason is much more than just positivistic “scientific” knowledge. Indeed, true science is impossible unless we first grasp the reality of natures and essences, the intelligible principles of the natural world. We can with much profit study nature using the tools and techniques of modern science. But let us never forget, as some modern scientists have forgotten, that the study of reality via reductive methods leads to incomplete knowledge. To grasp reality as it is, we must return to our pre-scientific and post-scientific knowledge, the tacit knowledge that pervades science, the knowledge that, when critically examined and refined, we call philosophy.”

To me this helps to explain why some scientists tend to not recognize God in science. It is not that they are willful atheists but that the language of science itself can make it easy to forget the outside world and philosophy. We need both science and philosophy to explain our world and God. Scientists are therefore not plotting to destroy religion, they are, let’s say, not using all of their brain to tackle the question of whether God exists. However, scientists are not all capable of being great philosophers, so to look to them for both scientific knowledge and philosophical understanding is not fair.

No one argues change.

Change is as obvious to us as design is. The question worthy of investigation is why. What is behind it?

If one has an a priori bias, they may only pick the balls in the box that are labeled evolution, ignoring the others in the box.

That is why we debate here.

 

[carinapir]

No one argues change.

Change is as obvious to us as design is. The question worthy of investigation is why. What is behind it?

If one has an a priori bias, they may only pick the balls in the box that are labeled evolution, ignoring the others in the box.

That is why we debate here.

Biological science is not and will never be investigating the existence of God or the why behind the universe. Biological science follows the trail of observable evidence wherever it leads.

“Why?” is explored in metaphysics and philosophy. Don’t try to make biological science something that it is not.

What you should be arguing for is more education in metaphysics and philosophy at the college level. I would admit that students get more of an education in the physical sciences than they do in subjects that require abstract thought.

 

[reggieM]

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.

Sure. He falsifies Darwinian evolution and that means he “still believes” in it.

evolutionary theory is extraordinarily pliable. Evolutionary theory adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape. It is really just a smorgasbord of countless possible naturalistic explanations that theorists effortlessly adapt to the data.
— Walter James ReMine, The Biotic Message

So, it’s an example how the Darwinian theory of gradual, step-by-step modifications through natural selection and mutations is being refuted and falsified. The researcher claims **evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian evolutionary model ** – direct opposition to evolutionary theory. It’s the “poof theory” of big mutations which can turn a mouse into a whale. Why not? As long as we “believe in evolution”, anything is possible.

Well, many will still be convinced. They’re the true faithful, never allowing a doubt to enter in. Even after Darwin’s claims have been refuted many times over it will be claimed that Darwinian theory is still “more certain than gravity”.

Trust me! Sure, I was a bit wrong about all that natural selection stuff, but this time I’ve got it 100% correct.

Since science, by nature, will always be refining its theories, these types of revisions are expected and encouraged.

Certainly. It allows for a very nice smoke-screen to dupe the ignorant public. When Darwinian claims are refuted, we can say how wonderful that is since “that’s how science works”. Then we can continue claiming that biology cannot function without Darwinian theory.

No one expects him to have gotten it 100% right.

In any other field, one does not praise a theory that is 40% correct. My theory about how pigs fly should be considered a classic and taught in biology books. Sure, I’m wrong about the flying part, but pigs actually exist and I explained that they walk around on the dirt so I got that part 100% correct!

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

I enjoyed how you restated the article in order to explain it to everyone – and at the same time said nothing about the implications of what “sudden evolutionary changes” actually mean.

 

[reggieM]

… 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.

Those are very good points from the article – thanks for pointing them out.

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.

Yes, it’s more than just private opinion. It’s the actual textbook which teaches the biology. In there we find atheistic belief being promoted.

 

[carinapir]

I enjoyed how you restated the article in order to explain it to everyone – and at the same time said nothing about the implications of what “sudden evolutionary changes” actually mean.

That was mostly because I was just so amazed that you would use an article that did not really agree with your argument to argue your point, however there is another reason.

The “implications” of sudden changes does not bother me. I have faith that whatever science will eventually find in its ongoing search for truth will be in line with God’s existence. I will not have a problem if I am presented with scientific evidence of His hand at work. I’m not atheist.

The disagreement here is apparently whether science is allowed to take time to investigate, explore, and revise it’s theories. You seem to feel that it must be 100% correct and produce concrete results that stand as great universal truths forever and ever. That is not how science works and if you cannot accept that, you cannot understand how I and others like me can believe in both science and God. Belief in science is not the same as belief in God because God is unchanging and science is constantly changing. To say that one believes in science is only to say that one accepts the scientific process and its method of pursuing knowledge, not that one believes in every single theory out there.

 

[buffalo]

and at the same time said nothing about the implications of what “sudden evolutionary changes” actually mean.

For those interested what the EES and Saltations means here is a good interview with a top evolutionist Stuart Newman that I have posted a few times already. The end is pretty interesting. Ouch this is gonna hurt some ears. After listening to the interview a few questions are in order.

Does this mean all the scientific achievements credited on this board to evolution have to be retracted?

Will buffalo no longer be attacked because he questions the science. (it’s not OK for buffalo but for evolutionists it is?)

Will the staunch defenders of evo even consider what this information means?

What story will the evo’s dream up to account for this?

Partial Transcript:

Suzan Mazur: How much of a makeover of the evolutionary biology community will the extended synthesis entail?
Stuart Newman: If you polled different people at the Altenberg meeting, some would say well it just needs to be what already exists plus a few additional things that they are working on. But I think the bigger challenge, particularly coming out of this idea of plasticity, is to the idea that things are built up in increments and that it’s only genetic change that drives evolution. I think that idea is a big idea.** And that big idea is coming up against a lot of entrenched belief within the scientific community that things happen in the Darwinian fashion. **
So I think ultimately it’s going to be a big turnaround in evolutionary theory even though it might look like it’s happening slowly.
Suzan Mazur: Massimo Pigliucci, one of the coordinators of the Altenberg event, has told me the extended synthesis will not affect the lives of people in general. Obviously you don’t agree?
Stuart Newman: I think it will affect the lives of people in the sense that right now we have these walls around belief in evolution or non-belief in evolution. We’ve moved past having big wars about whether people should take certain medications for high blood pressure. You could be religious and take blood pressure medicines. Or you can be an atheist, etc. We don’t have wars about many aspects of science.
We do have wars about some of the aspects of science. And one of the reasons we have these wars is because people are being asked to accept implausible and incorrect mechanisms. **
If better ideas of how evolution occurred get out into the wider culture, there will be more of an acceptance of the phenomenon of evolution. People will stop fighting about whether evolution happened, which is a ridiculous fight. And it’s partly a ridiculous fight because of religion. The other side **is because of science. Because the science is not where it should be.

 

[carinapir]

For those interested what the EES and Saltations means here is a good interview with a top evolutionist Stuart Newman that I have posted a few times already. The end is pretty interesting. Ouch this is gonna hurt some ears. After listening to the interview a few questions are in order.

Does this mean all the scientific achievements credited on this board to evolution have to be retracted?

Will buffalo no longer be attacked because he questions the science. (it’s not OK for buffalo but for evolutionists it is?)

Will the staunch defenders of evo even consider what this information means?

What story will the evo’s dream up to account for this?

Well, I guess the answer is that scientist questioning scientist is not surprising. Science questions itself, that’s how new theories and areas of study are developed. What I don’t understand, because I accept the fluid nature of scientific study, is why questioning one part of evolution discredits the whole theory. Even Stuart Newman says “If better ideas of how evolution occurred get out into the wider culture, there will be more of an acceptance of the phenomenon of evolution. People will stop fighting about whether evolution happened, which is a ridiculous fight.”

 

[StAnastasia]

What you should be arguing for is more education in metaphysics and philosophy at the college level. I would admit that students get more of an education in the physical sciences than they do in subjects that require abstract thought.

Quite right, Carinapir. But I would urge the teaching of philosophy and metaphysics in high school or younger, not only at the university level.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I guess the answer is that scientist questioning scientist is not surprising. Science questions itself, that’s how new theories and areas of study are developed. What I don’t understand, because I accept the fluid nature of scientific study, is why questioning one part of evolution discredits the whole theory. Even Stuart Newman says “If better ideas of how evolution occurred get out into the wider culture, there will be more of an acceptance of the phenomenon of evolution. People will stop fighting about whether evolution happened, which is a ridiculous fight.”

’And it’s partly a ridiculous fight because of religion. The other side ****is because of science. Because the science is not where it should be.""