How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Rían]

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!*

[Rían]

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:

"...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. "

"And two quotes from the proposed Kansas science curriculum guidelines,

"Students should understand that many aspects of paleontology and earth science are historical in nature where one seeks to explain the cause of singular unobserved past events from presently existing evidence. Techniques used in science to explain the cause of past events are similar to techniques used by forensic scientists. Like detectives, historical scientists develop tenative competing hypotheses and then seek clues that will rule in one while ruling out others. In many cases historical hypotheses may not be confirmed by experiment due to unknown variables and the inability to replicate conditions in the laboratory. As new clues are developed, historical hypotheses frequently change or are discarded entirely. As a consequence, in historical sciences one generally seeks "an inference to the best current explanation," with the undertstanding that the explanation may not be the "best" in the future."

"And

"Explanations about the cause of past events are inherently more subjective because they rely to a large extent on imagination and inference to supply missing evidence. Even a laboratory demonstration that an outcome is physically possible (e.g., amino acids forming in a defined chemical atmosphere), does not mean that such an outcome actually occurred in the history of nature."

"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

[Gandalfthegray]

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.

[Count Comfect]

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.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Interesting stuff, I agree! The reason I brought it up, tho (oops - THOUGH, sorry! ) was to show yet another link between evolution (biological evolution) and origin of life stuff that is so often vigorously denied. My feeling is that it is vigorously denied in the same way as an embarassing relative is denied - "who, that lady over there with the lampshade on her head? Never seen her!"

The connections are undeniable. They are made in mainstream science. I have provided links and examples from textbooks. I hope I have cleared that one up for good. Yes, they are separate fields. But to say they have nothing to do with each other is just wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists, IMO.

i think the point is that they are separate scientific theories... they can be linked, but they can also stand on their own... the theories do not depend on one another

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

[Spock]

What if we're all part of an alien beings dream?

[BeardofPants]

*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?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

*smacks tom
Common ancestor, common ancestor!

details!

yes, humans and apes sharing a common ancestor would be more accurate

[Spock]

oh, boy am I holding my tongue on this one; it's just too good to let go....

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

details!

yes, humans and apes sharing a common ancestor would be more accurate

(if it were true, that is ... )

[Spock]

Have you ever really looked around?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(if it were true, that is ... )

not "true" ... just a scientific theory

[brownjenkins]

we're actually discussing what is and is not science... which is not about beliefs, but about testability

and i'm agnostic

[Meriadoc]

-quote deleted-


(and it's athEIst)

[Spock]

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.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thanks! Ditto with you. I think you have the knack of distancing yourself from your opinions and analyzing something on its merits, which not a lot of people can do, IMO.

*preens* Aw thanks buddy.
I'm going to try to address all your posts in this post.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Interesting stuff, I agree! The reason I brought it up, tho (oops - THOUGH, sorry! ) was to show yet another link between evolution (biological evolution) and origin of life stuff that is so often vigorously denied. My feeling is that it is vigorously denied in the same way as an embarassing relative is denied - "who, that lady over there with the lampshade on her head? Never seen her!"

The connections are undeniable. They are made in mainstream science. I have provided links and examples from textbooks. I hope I have cleared that one up for good. Yes, they are separate fields. But to say they have nothing to do with each other is just wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists, IMO.

The Urey-Miller experiment wasn't perfect by any means, but it was a great experiment that contributed a lot to chemical evolution IMO.
However, someone who agrees with biological evolution doesn't necessarily have to agree with chemical evolution, as Boppy already mentioned.

Quotes posted by RÃ*an:

Originally Posted by Ernst Mayr

"...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. "

Ooh, teacher, I have a question! What's historicity?

Originally Posted by Kansas science curriculum guidelines

"Students should understand that many aspects of paleontology and earth science are historical in nature where one seeks to explain the cause of singular unobserved past events from presently existing evidence. Techniques used in science to explain the cause of past events are similar to techniques used by forensic scientists. Like detectives, historical scientists develop tenative competing hypotheses and then seek clues that will rule in one while ruling out others. In many cases historical hypotheses may not be confirmed by experiment due to unknown variables and the inability to replicate conditions in the laboratory. As new clues are developed, historical hypotheses frequently change or are discarded entirely. As a consequence, in historical sciences one generally seeks "an inference to the best current explanation," with the undertstanding that the explanation may not be the "best" in the future."

What exactly is a historical scientist? Why is there a different term for a scientist just because he studies events in the past?

Originally Posted by Kansas science curriculum guidelines

"Explanations about the cause of past events are inherently more subjective because they rely to a large extent on imagination and inference to supply missing evidence. Even a laboratory demonstration that an outcome is physically possible (e.g., amino acids forming in a defined chemical atmosphere), does not mean that such an outcome actually occurred in the history of nature."

Why would a theory about the past be more subjective than a theory about the future? A good scientist, no matter what he's looking at, is objective.

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

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"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!"

Even though I disagreed with a lot of your points, I'm still bringing you a #1 Teacher coffee mug for Christmas.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Rian, I think you're being rather disingenuous with your comments on abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.

That is not my intention, Your Boppiness.

I maintain that they are two disparate theories.

And I agree.

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.

Yes, but IMO, the link is quite strong compared to that of, say, evolution and making gold out of non-gold (what was that called again?) The outcome of the study of chemical evolution/abiogenesis speaks to the beginning point of the ToE, and IMO, that is an important issue. As I said before, one can go off with very strong deductions from a starting point, and IMO it's more than a little relevant to consider the likelihood of that starting point even happening. Do you see what I mean?


(random thought - is there a difference between a period, and a period in the italics formatting? )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

...Even though I disagreed with a lot of your points, I'm still bringing you a #1 Teacher coffee mug for Christmas.

Awww, thanks!!

(I can't believe how patient you are with me! )

[Nurvingiel]

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!)

[Count Comfect]

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.