|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-08-2005, 01:55 AM | #281 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
OK, Nurvi, I'm finally diving in with your requests.
First, I'd like to start with something I wrote a while back that I think is very important to the discussion, for I think that it is truly a non-biased, scientific view of the question of the origin of species, to phrase it like Darwin did. I'll just re-post it here: *searches* OK, now I"m really frustrated! I actually have a print-out of the thing, and can search for very specific words - and it's GONE! I put a LOT of thought into it, and it was long, and it's GONE! Well, I'm just gonna type the sucka back in, because I think it's a good opening discussion point for your question. EDIT - luckily I had it saved in Word!!!! *whew!*
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 11-08-2005 at 01:59 AM. |
11-08-2005, 01:58 AM | #282 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
If I were a Biology teacher
If I were a Biology teacher, here's how I would address the class when we started our section on origins: "OK, class, today we're starting a rather fascinating topic - the topic of origins; or in other words, how what you see around us today got here! "I think the most important thing we can understand about this topic is that it is historical in nature - we're talking about things in the past that NO ONE has observed. However, that doesn't mean that we can do nothing - on the contrary, there's a lot we can explore, and we can and have made many wonderful discoveries about our world during this exploration. But it's important to know that we will never know for sure if we're right or not, so let's be respectful of people with different opinions on the subject. "I'd really like to underscore the importance of understanding the historical nature of this subject. Here's a quote that I think is helpful, from Ernst Mayr, an evolutionary biologist: Quote:
"And two quotes from the proposed Kansas science curriculum guidelines, Quote:
"And Quote:
"SO - I want you to really understand the historical nature of the subject right off the bat, and I hope these quotes helped. Any questions? (no questions because of my perfect explanation ) "Now on to some of the hypotheses. "A major dividing point right from the beginning, with intelligent scientists on both sides, is this: did our world get here though the intent and efforts of an extra-terrestrial intelligence, or though entirely unguided events? Again, we won't be able to PROVE either one, but we should be able to come up with some testable hypotheses for both. "Currently, the leading contender for the latter view, in this country, is a theory called neo-Darwinism, which, in a nutshell, says that the initial elements for life were somehow here and somehow came together to form the building blocks of life, and all life as we see it today came from these initial particles through the mechanisms of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Currently, this model is by far the most accepted model in the scientific community. This model, although not entirely scientifically testable, has some testable parts, and we will study and discuss these. We will also discuss the original Darwinian theory, along with a discussion of the scientific information thought to be correct in Darwin's day as he formulated his theory, and how it was proven wrong, and how the theory has been modified to take this into account. The major tenet of this theory is the concept of macro-evolution - that organisms can change on the order of particle to people. "As far as the former view - there are many creation stories in this world, with varying degrees of scientific testability and authenticity as historical literature. In this class, we'll discuss the creation account as described in the Bible. I've chosen this one for several reasons - I wanted to have a story that is written down as opposed to oral, and it has very high credentials as a piece of ancient literature, according to standards applied to all ancient literature, and it has the highest degree of relevance to our own culture and history here in the United States, and it has some very testable parts. This model is often referred to as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), which, in a nutshell, says that God was somehow here and in a one-time supernatural act created the universe with certain characteristics, as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. This model is also not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as proposed age of the earth, and features of animal reproduction, and we will study and discuss these. "A third model that is becoming more and more popular falls into the former category but does not tie into any particular extraterrestrial intelligence; rather, it seeks to find hallmarks of intelligent design in the world around us, in the same way as archaeologists and anthropologists and SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists look for hallmarks of intelligent design. This model is titled Intelligent Design (ID). Again, this model is not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity. "ALL of these models have a starting point that we can't explain (IOW, where did God come from, or where did the chemical soup come from, or where did the extra-terrestrial intelligence come from?) - but since we ARE here, we'll just have to grant each model its starting point. And again, given the historical nature and inherent non-testability of many of the important features, maybe NONE of these are right! But certainly one of the two top-level concepts is right - either we're here through intelligent intent or we're not here through intelligent intent. "All three of these models, I again stress, have intelligent scientists behind them. Again, neo-Darwinism is by far the most widely held model, and we will spend the most time on it, but there have been many widely-held theories in the past that have been overthrown, and I don't think we should limit ourselves to only the most widely-held model, ESPECIALLY given the historical nature of the subject and that we CANNOT TEST to see if what the model said happened, actually happened. Let's treat each other as true scientists should - with consideration and respect, and only attack the data or the methodology, not the person. "Keep open minds, keep free of bias, conduct your experiments with care, review data with open minds, let the data take you where it naturally goes instead of trying to force it to where you THINK it should go, be considerate of others' opinions, and ... let's start!" refpost
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 11-08-2005 at 02:00 AM. |
|||
11-08-2005, 02:28 AM | #283 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: new jersey
Posts: 45
|
Look at it this way, its called the theory of evolutionism its not called the theory of creationism. Plus darwin believed strongly in god. I can see how god influenced evolutionism but not how this sneaky dark matter came from nothing and formed everyting. Ok people i leave you with that note.
|
11-08-2005, 03:19 AM | #284 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Rian - I think everything you say there is pretty much accurate. And I think it's a great start for a discussion of the issue. But it isn't, I believe, appropriate for a science class. History of science, yes. Comparative theology , yes. But, especially for an introductory biology class, the information about other theories is confusing, unnecessary, and overemphasizes them as science (which as you know, I firmly believe they are not). Emphasizing the nature of biology as historical science is appropriate. Introducing nonscientific explanations is not, similarly to how we do not bring in discussions of God stopping the sun at Jericho into an astronomy classroom.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
11-08-2005, 10:04 AM | #285 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
there are, and probably always will be, unknowns in the universe... but science is about figuring out what is knowable from observable evidence... science is also about connecting theories, but it does not depend on it... there are many theories which don't necessarily connect with one another, but they work well for the issues they try to address for instance, you can look at evolution from a smaller point of view... i.e. apes evolving into humans... you can make a valid theory without having to necessarily identify where apes came from (or where humans are eventually going to end up being)... you just need to indentify a cause that is observable... small changes from generation to generation that eventually lead to what we call homo sapiens today... this is science you could not, in science at least, point to a cause that is unobservable... i.e. 6,000 years ago and intelligent being made both apes and men in the same way, theories about evolution from single-cell organisms to what we see on earth today do not necessarily depend upon how those single-cell organisms came about... you can make additional theories about how they are related, but they also stand on their own
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
11-08-2005, 11:52 AM | #286 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
What if we're all part of an alien beings dream?
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
11-08-2005, 01:28 PM | #287 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
*smacks tom
Common ancestor, common ancestor! Rian, I think you're being rather disingenuous with your comments on abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. I maintain that they are two disparate theories. One must consider in this rather closed system of ours, that to some degree, there will always be linkage between all events, and this is of course true of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, HOWEVER, that is where the link ends. I don't see why you are getting your knickers in a kerfluffle. They are two very separate theories. We never even covered abiogenesis in my anthropology degree! Evolution is STRICTLY about the mechanism that drives the change between organisms. Abiogenesis is ostensibly how life occured from non-organic matter. Two very disparate theories. And with regards to ID, and teaching it in the science curriculum, until they can prove that it stands up to the appropriate scientfic bodies, it can stay out of the science classroom. It has no business even masquerading as a science, and in any case, how can something based on faith, even hope to be attributed as a science?
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
11-08-2005, 02:00 PM | #288 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
yes, humans and apes sharing a common ancestor would be more accurate
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
11-08-2005, 02:04 PM | #289 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
oh, boy am I holding my tongue on this one; it's just too good to let go....
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
11-08-2005, 04:05 PM | #290 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
11-08-2005, 04:12 PM | #291 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Have you ever really looked around?
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
11-08-2005, 04:19 PM | #292 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
11-08-2005, 04:21 PM | #293 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
we're actually discussing what is and is not science... which is not about beliefs, but about testability
and i'm agnostic
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. Last edited by Spock : 11-08-2005 at 04:28 PM. Reason: continuity |
11-08-2005, 04:23 PM | #294 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rían's house!
Posts: 19
|
-quote deleted-
(and it's athEIst) Last edited by Spock : 11-08-2005 at 04:29 PM. Reason: continuity |
11-08-2005, 04:30 PM | #295 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
FYI-everyone, I've deleted the baiting posts by our new member and allowed the discussion to continue in the civilized manner it had been.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
11-08-2005, 07:29 PM | #296 | ||||||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
I'm going to try to address all your posts in this post. Quote:
However, someone who agrees with biological evolution doesn't necessarily have to agree with chemical evolution, as Boppy already mentioned. Quotes posted by R*an: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your explanation for Neo-Darwinism... it has "some" testable parts? Oh teacher, your bias is showing. I admit I would be really annoyed if we had to study religious origin theories in biology class, because we already did that in Social Studies. It was extremely interesting, but I want 100% biology and any necessary related fields in this class, and I don't think any religion's origin theory cuts it. I would try not to let my extreme disagreement affect my grade too much though. (But, considering myself when I was in high school, it undoubtably would.) You seem like the kind of teacher I could discuss these issues with after class though. About studying Creationism because it's from "ancient literature", well, IMO if we're going to waste time in biology studing religions, I want to learn about one that I haven't studied a lot already. Our culture is permeated with Christianity (which in some ways, as you pointed out, increases its relevance), why not branch out? One religious theory is as irrelevant to biology as the next IMO. Incidentally, you mention the "proposed age of the Earth" WRT Creationism. However, I thought there was more than one propsed age of the Earth. What about YEC? Just because someone added up all the time discussed in the Bible (generational gaps, ages of people, and probably other instances) does not mean this is even the slightest bit useful. I think it ignores the important differences in the society of the people that wrote the Bible, and the society of those whose stories are in the Bible (where relevant) and modern North American society. People "back in the day" didn't think about time the way we do now, therefore looking at their records through the lens of our world view, results in a completely useless number that is somewhere around 6000. It's the methodology more than the answer that bugs me. Other Creationists, however, have different ideas of the age of the Earth IIRC. My issues with ID being taught in Biology are the same as my issues about Creationism being taught in Biology. The Mars rover was looking for evidence of Intelligent Design? In sum, at the risk of beating this point to death... Religion Science Quote:
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
11-08-2005, 08:08 PM | #297 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(random thought - is there a difference between a period, and a period in the italics formatting? )
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 11-08-2005 at 08:11 PM. |
|||
11-08-2005, 08:10 PM | #298 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
(I can't believe how patient you are with me! )
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
11-08-2005, 09:12 PM | #299 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Why yes, I did read your entire post!
Feel free to start a discussion about my responses if you want - I am generally accomplishing nothing today. (Except getting groceries. Laters!)
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-08-2005, 09:53 PM | #300 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
The difference between . and . seems to be ... nothing.
Gold out of non-gold is alchemy. And since it deals with a process of changing a 'lower' form to a 'higher' form, it's clearly related to evolution [/tongue in cheek] I agree that there is an inherent interest in chemical evolution (abiogenesis)when one considers biological evolution - but there is an inherent interest in universe-origins theory when one studies physics (where did all this stuff come from?) or Big-Bang theory and astronomic element-formation theory in chem (how is it that we have these elements?) - but they are distinct fields of study. So are abiogenesis and biological evolution.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 1199 | 10-05-2005 04:43 AM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | Rían | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |