We are not discussing God but the **theory of evolution **- which should not be misrepresented by teaching only the **NeoDarwinist **version.
There are many distinguished scientists who disagree with the NeoDarwinist version. Darwin was not even aware of random mutations…
There is no stipulation that **only **the NeoDarwinist version should be taught…
one fairs badly without the other. to be a good thinker requires a broad education.
Dancer is only saying that we shouldn’t mix content in individual courses. That would be like having a lecture over the Spanish language in English class. For the sake of organization, we shouldn’t teach the content of multiple courses in a single class and compare the material as though they’re similar. When one walks into a science class, one should expect to hear only what has been verified by empirical evidence, no? And when walks into a philosophy class, they should expect to hear, let’s face it, wild-arse speculation. This is okay because, as you’ve said, speculating helps the mind even if it’s useless and unfounded.
Sure, but just because one does not learn math in english class, does not mean they don’t learn maths.
There is only one theory of evolution. and that is what is taught in science class.
At present the only version of the theory of evolutiontaught in science classes is the NeoDarwinist version about which there is controversy amongst scientists and philosophers. It is clearly unscientific not to mention the fact that it is controversial and give the false impression that it is the **only version of the theory of evolution and that we exist solely **as the result of random mutations and natural selection. Obviously you are in favour of that policy because you are prejudiced and want your atheistic views promoted in schools. Any unbiased observer can see that it is educationally unsound to present only one view of human beings… as naked apes and nothing more…
There is no controversy amongst biologists, that is what counts. Also there is no other theory to teach. Prejudice has nothing to do with it, it a simple matter of one understanding what is and what is not science.
A brief glance at Google revealed the following:
You are making the mistake of equating NeoDarwinism with evolution!
“Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory” - Brian Goodwin, Professor of Biology, the Open University.*Code:Originally Posted by **tonyrey** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5837564#post5837564) *A brief glance at Google revealed the following:
timeshighereducation.co.u…sectioncode=26
"The challenges mentioned above are seen by some scientists and evolutionary historians as a severe test of neo-Darwinism, concluding that “there is no longer a universal consensus in favor of the synthetic theory” (Bowler 1988), or that the theory has broken down on its fundamental claims and thus, “if Mayr’s characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its textbook orthodoxy” (Gould 1980, 1982).”
newworldencyclopedia.org/…_neo-Darwinism
“Neo-Darwinism does not provide a satisfactory explanation for evolution and however resilient it may prove to criticism, it must eventually give way to a more realistic theory. This can only occur if we abandon the reductionistic and mechanistic ‘paradigm of science’, which neo-Darwinism so faithfully reflects.” Published in The Ecologist Vol. 20 No. 2, March / April 1990.
edwardgoldsmith.com/page82.html
“It is thus hardly surprising that the vast majority of biologists have accepted it [the theory of natural selection] as the theory of evolution. Yet there have always been those who are dissatisfied with the theory. The issue is not whether natural selection does occur; the question is whether the basic framework of neo-Darwinism-the natural selection of random mutations-is sufficient to account for most, if not all evolutionary change; for such is the claim of the modern “synthetic” theory.” (Ho, Mae-Wan [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T. [Mathematician, University of London], eds., “Beyond neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution”, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, pp.573-591, 1979, p.574. Emphasis in original) .
“We conclude-unexpectedly-that there is little evidence for the neo- Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.” (Orr, H. Allen , & Coyne, Jerry A. [Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago], “The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment,” The American Naturalist, Vol. 140, No. 5, November 1992, p.726).
members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/darwin03.html
“There is no controversy amongst biologists, that is what counts. Also there is no other theory to teach.” !!!
A few biologists does not constitute controversy, even if you had a 100 biologists that would still be nothing compared to the millions of biologists that accept evolution.
So you give me 4 papers, here is my response… scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?..on&btnG=Search
2.9 MILLION papers!! 4 v 2.9 million, yep massive controversy [/sarcasm]
You are equating evolution with NeoDarwinism!
One established scientific theory of evolution with different versions of the mechanisms involved.
In schools it is oversimplified. In universities the different versions are discussed… as you can see from the references I have given. Do you think the views of a Professor of Biology at the Open University should be rejected out of hand?
“cannot”? You underestimate the freedom of thought and expression in the US…
Then should at least find out its salient features if you are to discuss it adequately.
No there are not, and no it is not at university. I have to conclude you have never actually studied biology or a science at university. I’m sorry to say that this (as far as academia is concerned) renders your opinion meaningless.One established scientific theory of evolution with different versions of the mechanisms involved.
In schools it is oversimplified. In universities the different versions are discussed… as you can see from the references I have given. Do you think the views of a Professor of Biology at the Open University should be rejected out of hand?
“cannot”? You underestimate the freedom of thought and expression in the US…
Then should at least find out its salient features if you are to discuss it adequately.
Are you trying to tell me that only NeoDarwinism is taught at universities? How do you explain the article by the Professor of Biology at the Open University?! In schools it is oversimplified. In universities the different versions are discussed… as you can see from the references I have given.
Your **opinion **of my opinion is both irrelevant and false. It is also an argumentum ad hominem. You would be well advised to restrict yourself to the issues at stake rather than appeal to “authority”. You should at least find out the salient features of NeoDarwinism if you are to discuss it adequately.
You provided four papers i provided 2.9 million, are you trolling?Are you trying to tell me that only NeoDarwinism is taught at universities? How do you explain the article by the Professor of Biology at the Open University?! In schools it is oversimplified. In universities the different versions are discussed… as you can see from the references I have given.
Your **opinion **of my opinion is both irrelevant and false. It is also an argumentum ad hominem. You would be well advised to restrict yourself to the issues at stake rather than appeal to “authority”. You should at least find out the salient features of NeoDarwinism if you are to discuss it adequately.
“In the sciences, people quickly come to regard as their own personal property that which they have learned and had passed on to them at the universities and academies. If someone else comes along with new ideas that contradict the Credo and in fact even threaten to overturn it, then all passions are raised against this threat and no method is left untried to suppress it. People resist it in every way possible: pretending not to have heard about it; speaking disparagingly of it, as if it were not even worth the effort of looking into the matter. And so a new truth can have a long wait before finally being accepted.”–Goethe
You are still equating evolution with NeoDarwinism!
I’ve never heard of NeoDarwinism, only evolution as taught in every real university in the world.You are still equating evolution with NeoDarwinism!
And what has all this to do with the topic of animal suffering?
