Evolution In The Classroom

[rossum]

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?

How is that part of a science lesson? It is either part of a religion lesson or a history lesson. I suppose that all Catholic schools teach the life, death and resurrection of Jesus but I do not think that they all do it in biology lessons, nor do they do it in mathematics lessons nor in metalwork lessons. School curricula are split up into separate subjects, and Jesus is not part of the science curriculum any more than He is part of the metalwork curriculum.

rossum

 

[Mystic_Banana]

How is that part of a science lesson? It is either part of a religion lesson or a history lesson. I suppose that all Catholic schools teach the life, death and resurrection of Jesus but I do not think that they all do it in biology lessons, nor do they do it in mathematics lessons nor in metalwork lessons. School curricula are split up into separate subjects, and Jesus is not part of the science curriculum any more than He is part of the metalwork curriculum.

rossum

The question is, where does science end, and scientism begin? Earlier than is recognised, and far more quickly than should be considered objective science, in my opinion, respectively

 

[reggieM]

I suppose that all Catholic schools teach the life, death and resurrection of Jesus but I do not think that they all do it in biology lessons, nor do they do it in mathematics lessons nor in metalwork lessons. School curricula are split up into separate subjects, and Jesus is not part of the science curriculum any more than He is part of the metalwork curriculum.

It’s an interesting comment. The Catholic school I attended brought the life, death and resurrection into every class. It was the beginning and end of reason for the class itself.

Why should we study biology? Why should we get interested in this subject and need to learn about it? Why are we in this school all day, learning about these things that we might not like?

The life, death and resurrection of Christ is the reason we study biology. The Christian life gives meaning to the study of science and gives a purpose for life.

Science teaches us about the world God created. Science helps us to glorify God and worship Him through knowledge about His creation. Science can help us do good to others – as Christ commanded. Some may want to become missionary doctors or nurses and dedicate their lives to serving the poor and needy.

That’s why Jesus Christ is brought into the classroom – because, as we believe, it is His world and He has given us the gift of this earth and nature and our own lives.

So, we use science to reflect on His world, His creative power and the things He can teach us through nature.

That is radically different from an atheistic science lesson, obviously.

The same is true in literature, music, history classes – and even mathematics where we learn reasoning and the precision of numbers and mathematical formulas.

There are different schools of history, for example. There are marxist-historians or feminist-historians or post-modernist historians.

Those each provide an interpretation to the meaning of history.

The same is true with evolution.

Darwinian evolution is atheistic. It attempts to give an interpretation of nature which excludes the need for God as part of the explanation. That is part of the goal – to provide a naturalistic-materialistic interpretation of the development of nature.

Is that the correct approach? Is the atheistic view the proper interpretation?

We can ask the same question about the Marxist-school of history or any of the schools of philosophy or post-modernist art and literature criticism.

Evolutionary theory requires an interpretation of the fossil record among other things.

Two fossils, for example, do not provide an evolutionary fact. The facts are the size or dimensions of the fossils, their shape and features, their age, and their similarity or not to other fossils.

The interpretation of those facts is that the fossils indicate an evolution from one to the other (or not).

The formula 2+2=4 does not require much interpretation. There is a philosophical component in that formula, but in general terms, it can be considered a fact which is unchanged by various interpretations.

The meaning of two stones imprinted with shapes of skeletons can be widely changed by various interpetations. A system of interpretation must necessarily be guided by first principles – and in Darwinian theory the first principles are that nature can be explained or understood without needing reference to God.

Is that idea true or not? Can science explain all of nature without having to reference God or an Intelligent Designer?

That’s one major thing that evolutionary theory seeks to prove. It starts with that assumption --that there is no need to refer to supernatural intelligence in order to explain the diversity of nature.

 

[sans_Delilah]

Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory, in my opinion, cannot legally be taught in public schools in the United States.

The reason for this is that Intelligent Design Theory involves an intelligent designer, a creator. Therefore, by teaching Intelligent Design Theory, an instructor is teaching that “God” exists, which is teaching religion, which is a violation of the Separation of Church and State policy.

To me it is really that simple.

While Evolution Theory is flawed and incomplete, perhaps even incorrect, it is the closest thing we have to hard science on the origin of life. And as a theory, it is not taught to be (forgive me) gospel truth.

Even if Intelligent Design Theory is proven to be correct, which I doubt will happen, it seems to me that it would still be unconstitutional to teach it, as it is teaching religion.

 

[buffalo]

Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory, in my opinion, cannot legally be taught in public schools in the United States.

The reason for this is that Intelligent Design Theory involves an intelligent designer, a creator. Therefore, by teaching Intelligent Design Theory, an instructor is teaching that “God” exists, which is teaching religion, which is a violation of the Separation of Church and State policy.

To me it is really that simple.

While Evolution Theory is flawed and incomplete, perhaps even incorrect, it is the closest thing we have to hard science on the origin of life. And as a theory, it is not taught to be (forgive me) gospel truth.

Even if Intelligent Design Theory is proven to be correct, which I doubt will happen, it seems to me that it would still be unconstitutional to teach it, as it is teaching religion.

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. 
                 Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. 
                     	        
           
                                                **Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[sans_Delilah]

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. 
                 Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. 
                     	        
           
                                                **Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Fair enough. I will concede to you that I was improperly equating the terms “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism.”

From reading this, I determine that Intelligent Design does not necessarily have to have a religious context, but I find it hard to imagine it any other way… I can’t see Intelligent Design working without some deity behind it.

I suppose then that I would not really have a problem with Intelligent Design being taught in school as a THEORY. An unlikely theory.

 

[buffalo]

Fair enough. I will concede to you that I was improperly equating the terms “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism.”

From reading this, I determine that Intelligent Design does not necessarily have to have a religious context, but I find it hard to imagine it any other way… I can’t see Intelligent Design working without some deity behind it.

I suppose then that I would not really have a problem with Intelligent Design being taught in school as a THEORY. An unlikely theory.

We all know design exists. there is no question.

How about this:

Empirical science in the science classroom only. I propose a mandatory philosophy and metaphysics class where ID and evolutionism can be discussed, pros and cons.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Fair enough. I will concede to you that I was improperly equating the terms “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism.”

From reading this, I determine that Intelligent Design does not necessarily have to have a religious context, but I find it hard to imagine it any other way… I can’t see Intelligent Design working without some deity behind it.

I suppose then that I would not really have a problem with Intelligent Design being taught in school as a THEORY. An unlikely theory.

A likelier theory than chance. That, at least, is the theory!

 

[sans_Delilah]

A likelier theory than chance. That, at least, is the theory!

Heh.



I’m sorry, but Evolution just makes sense to me. Chance happenings tend to build up over millions of years, I would imagine.

 

[buffalo]

Heh.



I’m sorry, but Evolution just makes sense to me. Chance happenings tend to build up over millions of years, I would imagine.

Leading evolutionist will tell you themselves that the modern synthesis has major problems. Guess what it is being replaced with? The EES featuring none other than self-organization.

Signature in the Cell

and

[Darwin’s Dilemma

](http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/)FILM EXPLORES MYSTERY OF “CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION”

        Investigate a mystery that Darwin never solved as you journey to a prehistoric world of amazing creatures and unanswered questions in this new documentary. >            
                    		**Where Did the Information Come From?**

         ***Darwin’s Dilemma ***explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life: The geologically-sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps Charles Darwin had predicted. Frequently described as “the Cambrian Explosion,” the development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information. “The big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses is where does all that new information come from?” says Dr. Stephen Meyer, a featured expert in the documentary and author of the book *[Signature in the  Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design](http://www.signatureinthecell.com/index.php)*.

 

[rossum]

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

They conclude wrongly. IC structures can evolve and have been shown to evolve. Professor Behe accepts that IC structures can evolve. His own work shows that a simple IC structure can evolve in a population of bacteria in about 20,000 years using only a subset of possible evolutionary mechanisms.

I would also say that ID is not currently falsifiable. ID has so far not provided us with a description of something that the designer could not have designed. Darwin provided two such descriptions in “Origin”:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  Where is a similar description from the ID side? What would disprove ID and make it “absolutely break down”?

Part of being science is taking the risk of being falsified; currently ID does not appear to want to take that risk. If ID wants to be science then it needs to make that step.

rossum

 

[tjm190]

We all know design exists. there is no question.

How about this:

Empirical science in the science classroom only. I propose a mandatory philosophy and metaphysics class where ID and evolutionism can be discussed, pros and cons.

I happened to enjoy my instruction in geology and astronomy thank you very much.

 

[buffalo]

They conclude wrongly. IC structures can evolve and have been shown to evolve. Professor Behe accepts that IC structures can evolve. His own work shows that a simple IC structure can evolve in a population of bacteria in about 20,000 years using only a subset of possible evolutionary mechanisms.

I would also say that ID is not currently falsifiable. ID has so far not provided us with a description of something that the designer could not have designed. Darwin provided two such descriptions in “Origin”:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.Where is a similar description from the ID side? What would disprove ID and make it “absolutely break down”?

Part of being science is taking the risk of being falsified; currently ID does not appear to want to take that risk. If ID wants to be science then it needs to make that step.

rossum

Falsifiability is indeed a big part of science. But science is self limiting by its own definition and therefore only can express a partial view of reality.

Again trying to formulize the recognition of design should not be discouraged, We know it exists.

Could we write a formula that first could identify the basics of something designed? Shape? Attributes? Color? etc… Rudimentary of course but still doable. Automobile vision systems are doing just that trying to detect the design of roadways, lines and edges to steer.

Perhaps ID could never be falsifiable because there exists no instance of something not designed. Thar is some God.

 

[buffalo]

I happened to enjoy my instruction in geology and astronomy thank you very much.

Me too. Just remember that there too, much is built on ideas and thoughts (educated guesses) and not necessarily empirical evidence. That is a problem when trying to study things of the past, history.

 

[tjm190]

Me too. Just remember that there too, much is built on ideas and thoughts (educated guesses) and not necessarily empirical evidence. That is a problem when trying to study things of the past, history.

Empirical data leads to conclusions- for example, emprical data shows things fall. The idea of gravity is a ‘guess.’

 

[buffalo]

Empirical data leads to conclusions- for example, emprical data shows things fall. The idea of gravity is a ‘guess.’

Right.

 

[edwest2]

They conclude wrongly. IC structures can evolve and have been shown to evolve. Professor Behe accepts that IC structures can evolve. His own work shows that a simple IC structure can evolve in a population of bacteria in about 20,000 years using only a subset of possible evolutionary mechanisms.

I would also say that ID is not currently falsifiable. ID has so far not provided us with a description of something that the designer could not have designed. Darwin provided two such descriptions in “Origin”:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  Where is a similar description from the ID side? What would disprove ID and make it “absolutely break down”?

Part of being science is taking the risk of being falsified; currently ID does not appear to want to take that risk. If ID wants to be science then it needs to make that step.

rossum

Incorrect. Is any man-made object not designed? Is any designed object not designed?

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

They conclude wrongly. IC structures can evolve and have been shown to evolve. Professor Behe accepts that IC structures can evolve. His own work shows that a simple IC structure can evolve in a population of bacteria in about 20,000 years using only a subset of possible evolutionary mechanisms.

I would also say that ID is not currently falsifiable. ID has so far not provided us with a description of something that the designer could not have designed. Darwin provided two such descriptions in “Origin”:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  Where is a similar description from the ID side? What would disprove ID and make it “absolutely break down”?

Part of being science is taking the risk of being falsified; currently ID does not appear to want to take that risk. If ID wants to be science then it needs to make that step.

rossum

Believe me, I have really tried to understand this business that a theory has to be falsifiable in order to be accurate. One of my dictionaries links falsifiable to the verb falsify, to state untruthfully, to prove false. www.thefreedictionary.com shows falsifiable as an adjective – capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. It also had other definitions.

Aren’t all theories tested by experiment or observation?
When published, aren’t all theories verified as true by peer review?
How do readers determine if published research [supporting a theory] has been tested for proof that it is false?

And the big question, at least to me, is --How was basic evolutionary theory regarding human nature tested to see if the theory was false?

My apology for being cranky.

 

[Touchstone]

Believe me, I have really tried to understand this business that a theory has to be falsifiable in order to be accurate. One of my dictionaries links falsifiable to the verb falsify, to state untruthfully, to prove false. www.thefreedictionary.com shows falsifiable as an adjective – capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. It also had other definitions.

Aren’t all theories tested by experiment or observation?
When published, aren’t all theories verified as true by peer review?
How do readers determine if published research [supporting a theory] has been tested for proof that it is false?

And the big question, at least to me, is --How was basic evolutionary theory regarding human nature tested to see if the theory was false?

My apology for being cranky.

I think I understand your struggle here. Falsification is a very important (essential!) principle in science, Scientific knowledge is primarily eliminative, meaning that what we know is really more a matter or what we cannot rule out rather than what we can positively show.

But this does not mean that a theory has to be show false to be show true, or some such. The falsifiability principle obtains in a theory’s liability to falsification, not it’s actual falsification. It may be falsified, but if so, it is dismissed. But the theories that are left standing must be at risk of being falsified. That is, there must be some way, in principle, at least, for the evidence to emerge in such a way that we conclude the idea is false.

If you don’t have that, really, you got nothing in terms of real knowledge. Consider the Islamic idea that Allah actively sustains every bond for ever particle of every atom in the entire universe at every moment with his divine will. Could be, right? May be.

But scientifically, this is entirely vacuous. It’s perfectly unfalsifiable. There is NO state of the world we can imagine that would lead us to conclude that Allah was NOT, in fact, sustaining the various energies and forces that make the world go round at the atomic level. That’s the worst sin a proposition can commit in terms of science. Being false is certainly not success for an idea, but at least a false proposition is on the playing field. An unfalsifiable proposition can’t even rise to being declared false.

Which means, if we take the idea of “true” as a statement about the real world seriously, that the weight of that word is critically dependent on the meaning of its negation; what would the world look like if this proposition was false? To the extent that question cannot be answered, or the false-world is indistinguishable from the true-world, claiming that proposition as “true” is merely trivial, more tautology or truism than a statement of real knowledge.

-TS

 

[grannymh]

I think I understand your struggle here. Falsification is a very important (essential!) principle in science, Scientific knowledge is primarily eliminative, meaning that what we know is really more a matter or what we cannot rule out rather than what we can positively show.

But this does not mean that a theory has to be show false to be show true, or some such. The falsifiability principle obtains in a theory’s liability to falsification, not it’s actual falsification. It may be falsified, but if so, it is dismissed. But the theories that are left standing must be at risk of being falsified. That is, there must be some way, in principle, at least, for the evidence to emerge in such a way that we conclude the idea is false.

If you don’t have that, really, you got nothing in terms of real knowledge. Consider the Islamic idea that Allah actively sustains every bond for ever particle of every atom in the entire universe at every moment with his divine will. Could be, right? May be.

But scientifically, this is entirely vacuous. It’s perfectly unfalsifiable. There is NO state of the world we can imagine that would lead us to conclude that Allah was NOT, in fact, sustaining the various energies and forces that make the world go round at the atomic level. That’s the worst sin a proposition can commit in terms of science. Being false is certainly not success for an idea, but at least a false proposition is on the playing field. An unfalsifiable proposition can’t even rise to being declared false.

Which means, if we take the idea of “true” as a statement about the real world seriously, that the weight of that word is critically dependent on the meaning of its negation; what would the world look like if this proposition was false? To the extent that question cannot be answered, or the false-world is indistinguishable from the true-world, claiming that proposition as “true” is merely trivial, more tautology or truism than a statement of real knowledge.

-TS

Thank you for understanding my struggle. But isn’t the Islamic idea, which is in the spiritual realm, falsifiable by another spiritual idea such as Hinduism?