Gaps in Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoulBeaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles_Darwin said:
josie L;5437341:
A God either exists or he doesn’t (this is mathematically viable)
Click to expand...
No, its not.
Click to expand...
Yes… it is. It is a closed statement that includes every possibility (i.e. exists or does not exist). You can argue that it is 100% that God exists or 100% that God does not exist. But the statement itself is mathematically sound.
 
akoso said:
Before adding to this conversation any more, I’m curious as to how ID is taught in a biology classroom. I’m not American and don’t know how it is presented within a scientific framework. Please don’t reply to this by bashing evolution or ID… I’m just curious as to how it is taught (in places where it is). Thanks.
Click to expand...
akoso, the short answer would be “X is too complicated to have evolved, so God must have intervened to accomplish it.” The trouble is, you can’t easily measure or quantify divine intervention.

But for a longer answer I forward a link to the statement by the National Association of State Boards of Education, in the aftermath of the Dover, PA decision striking down intelligent design. This URL might have further links to the actual ID curriculum used in Dover:

nasbe.org/index.php/file-repository/Education-Issues/Legal-Brief-Archive/Dover-PA-Intelligent-Design-Curriculum-Ruled-Unconstitutional/

StAnastasia
 
akoso said:
Yes… it is. It is a closed statement that includes every possibility (i.e. exists or does not exist). You can argue that it is 100% that God exists or 100% that God does not exist. But the statement itself is mathematically sound.
Click to expand...
Thanks. 👍
 
josie_L said:
No, I wouldn’t want that either. I am more concerned with students having the ability to object or raise questions about evolution (concerning flaws) as I have never been one to accept things at face value.
Click to expand...
I haven’t met a teacher who doesn’t allow students to raise objections. But it’s a waste of time to allow students to filibuster a science lecture or lab discussion with their list of talking points downloaded from creationist organizations, particularly ones that have been answered ad nauseam. After a polite hearing I would refer the student to Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/ where they can read responses to their objections without taking up the time of other students who are paying to learn about evolutionary biology.

I see it as a matter of pedagogical ethics. If you’ve got fifty students whose parents are paying x dollars for x amount of time in a class, it is morally wrong to allow one student to monopolize the time of students who’ve paid for it with fundamental objections to the class. Let them talk to the teacher outside class!

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
akoso;5437654:
Before adding to this conversation any more, I’m curious as to how ID is taught in a biology classroom. I’m not American and don’t know how it is presented within a scientific framework. Please don’t reply to this by bashing evolution or ID… I’m just curious as to how it is taught (in places where it is). Thanks.
Click to expand...
akoso, the short answer would be “X is too complicated to have evolved, so God must have intervened to accomplish it.” The trouble is, you can’t easily measure or quantify divine intervention.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link… I’ll leaf through it… but the real question I’m asking is how ID is taught alongside evolution. When it has been taught in schools, are the two presented in isolation? Is there a compare/contrast? How do students take to this? What age(s) is this taught at?

Thanks again.
 
StAnastasia said:
I haven’t met a teacher who doesn’t allow students to raise objections. But it’s a waste of time to allow students to filibuster a science lecture or lab discussion with their list of talking points downloaded from creationist organizations, particularly ones that have been answered ad nauseam. After a polite hearing I would refer the student to Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/ where they can read responses to their objections without taking up the time of other students who are paying to learn about evolutionary biology.

I see it as a matter of pedagogical ethics. If you’ve got fifty students whose parents are paying x dollars for x amount of time in a class, it is morally wrong to allow one student to monopolize the time of students who’ve paid for it with fundamental objections to the class. Let them talk to the teacher outside class!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
How many objections do you counter in your class (I assume from what you’ve wrote you are a science teacher) out of curiousity?
 
akoso said:
Thanks for the link… I’ll leaf through it… but the real question I’m asking is how ID is taught alongside evolution. When it has been taught in schools, are the two presented in isolation? Is there a compare/contrast? How do students take to this? What age(s) is this taught at? Thanks again.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know how you would teach ID alongside evolution. I guess you could teach a class on how the eye has evolved forty times, in different genera. Then you could balance that with a class on how the eye is too irreducibly complex to have evolved, and must have been created by God all at once in 4004 B.C.
 
josie_L said:
How many objections do you counter in your class (I assume from what you’ve wrote you are a science teacher) out of curiousity?
Click to expand...
I’m a theology professor, not a science teacher. But I work with a couple of science teachers, and I think they occasionally encounter objections. I met one teacher at a conference who has an ingenious solution: it’s the “e” word itself they object to, so if she simply never mentions “evolution” but speaks of “descent with modification” and “common ancestry” the objections dry up. The word itself has become a hot-button issue.

StAnastasia
 
curioosbadger said:
he was referring to whether it was mathematically viable, it isnt. you cant math your way into god.
Click to expand...
Are you saying we aren’t allowed to calculate the possibilities of life emerging without god to conclude that the odds are basically impossible without an Intelligent Designer?
 
Benjamin8o8 said:
Are you saying we aren’t allowed to calculate the possibilities of life emerging without god to conclude that the odds are basically impossible without an Intelligent Designer?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think you can do that.

The statement that was made before was that either God exists or doesn’t. This statement is mathematically viable and inclusive. It’s the basic law of logic. A is true or A is not true.

Now, just because the statement is logically sound, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily useful, because in order to determine whether A is true or A is not true, we need to have some way of determining/measuring this. I’m not sure how we can empirically test and calculate the possibilities of life emerging without God.

And saying “the big bang theory involves very, very low probabilities” only weakens the argument of that theory… but concludes nothing about any other theory (theist or otherwise).
 
StAnastasia said:
Charles Darwin, I take it from your response that you’ve not taught school kids. Your approach would be a pedagogical nightmare.
Click to expand...
My parents are both teachers, whats your point? How on earth is a school kid qualified to raise objections to something they dont understand.
 
Ok, I have a question how does one make sense of the Cambrian explosion with the idea of natural selection (descent with modification in slight successive favorable variations’)?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
My parents are both teachers, whats your point? How on earth is a school kid qualified to raise objections to something they dont understand.
Click to expand...
Charles, did you never learn punctuation from your school teacher parents?

More important have you ever taught school? Have you experienced children asking questions, and had to discriminate between questions the answering of which would be a legitimate use of time, and questions the answering of which would clearly be a waste of everyone’s time?

StAnastasia
 
josie_L said:
Ok, I have a question how does one make sense of the Cambrian explosion with the idea of natural selection (descent with modification in slight successive favorable variations’)?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “make sense of”? What is the problem you see with the Cambrian explosion?
 
Benjamin8o8 said:
Are you saying we aren’t allowed to calculate the possibilities of life emerging without god to conclude that the odds are basically impossible without an Intelligent Designer?
Click to expand...
Stats don’t work that way.
 
josie_L said:
I’m guessing your 17 (years of age that is). 😃
Click to expand...
Well you guessed wrong ;). The claim was in regard to pascal’s wager. That IS NOT pascal’s wager. Pascal’s wager is concerned with a specific god. So there is NOT 2 options.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top