Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[reggieM]

Good. Something new has been added. You not only have a list but you have some arguments from scientists on the list that you have studied in and found convincing.

Can you please reference one or more of these arguments?

Peer reviewed papers:

Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity

[The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age)

Books …

Michael Behe - Darwin’s Black Box
Dean Kenyon - Nature’s Destiny
William Dembski - The Design of Life
Mario Beauregard - The Spiritual Brain
Guillermo Gonzalez - Privileged Planet

Among other interviews …

With Stanley Salthe on natural selection
David Berlinski on probability studies

Various web-based articles from these signees …

Maciej Giertych
David Snoke
Ralph Seelke
Cornelius Hunter
Gerald Schroeder
Wolfgang Smith
Michael R. Egnor

 

[Donald45]

…The poll shows similar overwhelming support for giving students and teachers the academic freedom to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution…

As long as we’re talking about properly scientific “strengths and weaknesses,” I see no problem whatsoever. Indeed, teachers and professors already do this, and always have.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[StAnastasia]

As long as we’re talking about properly scientific “strengths and weaknesses,” I see no problem whatsoever. Indeed, teachers and professors already do this, and always have. Gaudium de veritate, Don
+T+

Don, are you sure the 1,000 biologists who subscribe to Project Steve are not engaged in a mass conspiracy to suppress new evidence published by the Discovery Institute that discredits evolution?

StAnastasia

 

[Monty_Arch]

As Catholics, we cannot accept that. Science must be subordinate to religion at the very least, in moral terms.

Science isn’t about morality. Science is science.

 

[PEPCIS]

We have complete sequences for both the human and chimpanzee genomes.

This tidbit of information is frequently thrown out by evolutionists because of it’s LACK of information. By that, I mean the extreme lack of data which details WHAT PORTION OF THE DNA SEQUENCE is being compared.

These “scientific studies” (a misnomer due to the lack of adherence to scientific standards) are formatted to EXCLUDE any information regarding the incomplete nature of the comparison.

Though rossum does not say it, the similarity of his post with similarly-worded evolutionary proclamations, implies that the complete sequences for both the human and chimpanzee genomes have been compared and that they are 99% identical.

Yet, what is rarely noted in ANY scientific article on this specific subject is that ONLY A PORTION OF THE DNA SEQUENCES of the two species are compared, not the whole sequence.

If we couple that with the fact that these studies often fail to account for the DNA insertions and deletions, then we have a drop in the percentage of “similarites.”

Often, this range of similarities is pegged somewhere between 94% and 98%. Yet, if the whole of the genome where compared, this would undoubtedly drop significantly.

 

[Leela]

As Catholics, we cannot accept that. Science must be subordinate to religion at the very least, in moral terms.

I can’t see how science ever has to consider any theology in establishing its truths, but theology needs to consider science if it wants its truths to have anything to do with what the world is like.

 

[buffalo]

I can’t see how science ever has to consider any theology in establishing its truths, but theology needs to consider science if it wants its truths to have anything to do with what the world is like.

It does so in a self imposed vacuum. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Therefore it has no ability to see the whole truth. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Are you making the claim there is no more than this?

 

[reggieM]

I can’t see how science ever has to consider any theology in establishing its truths, but theology needs to consider science if it wants its truths to have anything to do with what the world is like.

Catholic scientists must consider theology before engaging in scientific work. It is forbidden, for example, for Catholic scientists to perform experiments on human beings without their consent (it may be completely immoral even with their consent). There are many areas where Catholics working in science must subordinate their work to the theology of the Church.

Catholic are also required to oppose the use of science in ways that violate the teaching of the Church (that is, the laws of God).

For Catholics, this remains a universal norm that all science must conform to. It is immoral for science to violate the laws of God, therefore science must be subordinate to those laws.

But even on the natural order, science is subordinate to various moral norms and is not independent of them.

There are probably some atheists who believe that science is not bound by any moral laws.

 

[Leela]

It does so in a self imposed vacuum. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Therefore it has no ability to see the whole truth. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Are you making the claim there is no more than this?

No, I’m just saying that science does not have to care one bit what religion says, but religions have to care what science says. A religious person has to care what both say, and somehow reconcile the two. But this reconciliation is only necessary for the religious person wherever claims made by religion are not supported or are contradicted by science.

 

[buffalo]

No, I’m just saying that science does not have to care one bit what religion says, but religions have to care what science says. A religious person has to care what both say, and somehow reconcile the two. But this reconciliation is only necessary for the religious person wherever claims made by religion are not supported or are contradicted by science.

Then you take the position that science can pronounce absolute truth. It cannot do so, since it is limited.

 

[Contarini]

Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin:
Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

Just in time for Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his Origin of Species, a new nationwide Zogby poll of likely voters indicates overwhelming public support for teaching the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory. The poll shows similar overwhelming support for giving students and teachers the academic freedom to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.
According to Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West, the poll results may shatter some preconceptions held by those in the media about who supports letting students hear a balanced presentation on Darwinian theory.

Of course in a relativistic society like ours, the idea that anything is objectively true is hard for people to swallow. And given how religious and relatively conservative Americans are, it should be no surprise that many want a creationist or ID perspective to be taught.

Edwin

 

[Leela]

Then you take the position that science can pronounce absolute truth. It cannot do so, since it is limited.

I don’t take the position that anyone is in a position to pronounce absolute truth, whatever that means. Is absolute truth different from truth?

 

[reggieM]

No, I’m just saying that science does not have to care one bit what religion says, but religions have to care what science says. A religious person has to care what both say, and somehow reconcile the two. But this reconciliation is only necessary for the religious person wherever claims made by religion are not supported or are contradicted by science.

It allso depends on what kind of culture the science is operating in. Even in our own culture, dominated by atheistic-materialism, scientists are not free to violate the moral and legal norms without ending up in jail.
There are other cultures where religion plays a more dominant role and science must regard that in order to function in society.

Wherever scientific research is supported by political or corporate funding, science observes limits in those areas also.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t take the position that anyone is in a position to pronounce absolute truth, whatever that means. Is absolute truth different from truth?

Well someone knows more truth than you do. Suppose there are aliens who know more truth than us. Perhaps they can see into an additional dimension.

Absolute truth is the “top” truth. The complete truth. Yes it is greater than truth. There are truths we can know that are true, but we cannot know the total truth.

 

[reggieM]

And given how religious and relatively conservative Americans are, it should be no surprise that many want a creationist or ID perspective to be taught.

Edwin

There was a surprise in the findings though, as the linked article pointed out:

“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious extremists is afoot,” said West. “But **the new Zogby poll reveals a broad-based and well-informed public consensus **for academic freedom on evolution. **That consensus includes Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates, independents, and every race, gender, and age group. **The Darwin Lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”

**According to the poll, Democrats (82%) and liberals (86%) are even more likely than Republicans (73%) and conservatives (72%) **to support the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution.”

 

[Sideline]

According to the poll, Democrats (82%) and liberals (86%) are even more likely than Republicans (73%) and conservatives (72%) to support the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution.”

One of my first jobs was working for a telephone survey company.

If I you hadn’t told me the results of that poll, and only told me that the question was, “Should we teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution?” I would have predicted a high number of liberal, well-educated support. Do you know why? Because people don’t listen!

Most of the people who answer that poll will hear “teach” and “evolution”.

What would be interesting is if you called all of the people who said yes a couple of weeks lated and ask them, “Do you think that we should teach alternative theories to evolution?” Or “Do you think we should stop emphasizing evolution in the biology classroom?”

 

[Leela]

One of my first jobs was working for a telephone survey company.

If I you hadn’t told me the results of that poll, and only told me that the question was, “Should we teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution?” I would have predicted a high number of liberal, well-educated support. Do you know why? Because people don’t listen!

Most of the people who answer that poll will hear “teach” and “evolution”.

What would be interesting is if you called all of the people who said yes a couple of weeks lated and ask them, “Do you think that we should teach alternative theories to evolution?” Or “Do you think we should stop emphasizing evolution in the biology classroom?”

Right. The question was posed in terms of academic freedom to teach about evolution. Of course liberals will be more likely than conservatives to support academic freedom!

 

[grannymh]

This tidbit of information is frequently thrown out by evolutionists because of it’s LACK of information. By that, I mean the extreme lack of data which details WHAT PORTION OF THE DNA SEQUENCE is being compared.

I have been saying that one needs to look at missing information before giving a dogmatic interpretation of the evolution of humanity.
Would a description of the whole genome be the base for indicating what data is lacking?

Yet, what is rarely noted in ANY scientific article on this specific subject is that ONLY A PORTION OF THE DNA SEQUENCES of the two species are compared, not the whole sequence.

If we couple that with the fact that these studies often fail to account for the DNA insertions and deletions, then we have a drop in the percentage of “similarites.”

As of now, I am not sure what is meant by DNA insertions and deletions. I do have a similar idea in my notes somewhere, but right now it escapes me.

Often, this range of similarities is pegged somewhere between 94% and 98%. Yet, if the whole of the genome where compared, this would undoubtedly drop significantly.

Please, pretty please with sugar on it, would you give me some links to published papers which have the above comments spelled out

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.
Refuse FOCA as it applies to the medical field.

 

[grannymh]

No, I’m just saying that science does not have to care one bit what religion says, but religions have to care what science says. A religious person has to care what both say, and somehow reconcile the two. But this reconciliation is only necessary for the religious person wherever claims made by religion are not supported or are contradicted by science.

The universal goals of all humanity are to know – what and who we humans are; how and where we came from; what our current life is; what our life should be; and where we are going.

Science and philosophy are partner disciplines with the same universal goals.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[rossum]

These “scientific studies” (a misnomer due to the lack of adherence to scientific standards) are formatted to EXCLUDE any information regarding the incomplete nature of the comparison.

Do you have any evidence of this or are we just expected to believe your unsupported assertion? Have you ever looked at a proper scientific paper, rather than just the abbreviated report in the press? Such papers always include a section on the materials and methods used so that other scientists can duplicate the experiment and confirm the results. For example, a quick search on Google scholar (scholar.google.com/) came up with this paper as top selection: Clinical and Laboratory StrainsMycobacterium tuberculosis. This is a paper comparing genomes, and its Materials and Methods section describes, in great technical detail, how the comparison was done:Annotation. Open reading frames (ORFs) were identified with GLIMMER (30). The ORFs were searched against an in-house nonredundant amino acid database with blast_extend_repraze, which uses a BLASTP algorithm to generate pairwise amino acid alignments (4, 42). In addition to the pairwise alignments used to generate gene assignments, the ORFs were evaluated by comparison to a database of hidden Markov models generated from multiple sequence alignments for protein families and superfamilies (33). A team of annotation experts evaluated the results generated by these various tools and assigned to each ORF with a significant match an accession identification and a biological-role identification.
One of the authors is Craig Venter, who you may have heard of in connection with the human genome project.

Though rossum does not say it …

Quite. I did not say something, and yet you criticise me for saying it. Very weak indeed. How aboutEPCIS did not say that Christians eat babies so he is guilty of terminological inexactitude when he implies that Christians eat babies.
If this is the best that you can come up with then your arguments must be very weak indeed. Much better to look at what I did say and criticise that.

Often, this range of similarities is pegged somewhere between 94% and 98%. Yet, if the whole of the genome where compared, this would undoubtedly drop significantly.

Evidence please. We have complete copies of both genomes. If you doubt the figures then go and look at the two genomes and compare them for yourself. You can access the human genome here and the chimpanzee genome here. One of the usual software tools used for comparing genomes is BLAST, found here. Science does not work by assertion, it works by evidence. If you doubt the 94 - 98% similarity figure then both genomes and the tools needed to compare them are available to you. Show us your evidence; if you cannot show any evidence then science will ignore you. In science the evidence wins.

rossum