How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The difference between . and . seems to be ... nothing.

ah-HA! Gotcha curious enough to try a scientific experiment!

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]

[Count Comfect]

I love scientific experiments.

Kansas' School Board voted to change their standards back to evolution-unfriendly standards. I couldn't find the text of the new standards, so I don't really want to comment until I can read them. But the standards will actually have to be reworked again, because the the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have refused them the right to use those organizations' science materials (which are the basis for most science curricula in the nation).

[Rían]

Wow, amazing ... It seems like the NAS and the NSTA have an agenda. I mean, if they think their materials are good, why not let Kansas use them? Why try to dictate what Kansas schools think is good to teach besides evolution? Why not say, "Here, these are the best books available by good scientists - please take them and use them!" Why not?

And I can't agree with your characterization of "evolution-unfriendly", given that they still teach evolution as the most widely supported model around. They just spend a miniscule amount of classroom time to present some things about evolution that they think are important for students to know to get the whole picture. How is that "evolution-unfriendly"?

Good for Kansas. I think the Dover people went too far too soon, though, and they're paying for it.

And I say good for Michael Behe, who has the guts to stand up and be cannon fodder for something he believes in. Of course he's only one guy, and the subject is very new and under development in an extremely hostile environment, and there's gaps and weak areas - and he's not going to be perfect by any means. But I admire him - he must have known they'd be angry and loaded for bear.

[Count Comfect]

The "agenda" of these organizations is that they do not believe part of their curriculum should be taught without another part. And evolution-over-other-theories is part of their curriculum. That is their prerogative. I also would take a bet they're pissed Kansas changed its definition of the "Nature of Science" from "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us" (2001 standards) to "a systematic method of continuing investigation...to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena" or something similar (text quoted from the August 9th, 2005 draft standards). The elimination of the requirement for natural explanations is unscientific.

If someone does something you cannot support, you do what you can to make them change. If you are doing something I don't like, I can stop helping you do something else in order to make you change the first thing. I'm not required to keep on helping you do the second thing just because it isn't directly connected to the thing I dislike.

And they are evolution-unfriendly (at least the August draft is - the text of the standards passed yesterday is still not up on their site). I didn't say ANTI-evolution. There is a distinction. They are evolution-unfriendly because they single evolution out as a theory to be disputed, and they over-emphasize the degree to which it is questioned. They are not anti-evolution because yes, evolution is still taught as a majority opinion.

And I say I admire Michael Behe's courage immensely. I also think he uses circular arguments, treats his material unscientifically, and is most likely wrong. Guts he has. An actual cohesive argument, not so much.

[rohirrim TR]

i haven't seen Behe's arguements but, i doubt they could be any worse than the circular reasoning that evolutionists are so very fond of using.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I mean, if they think their materials are good, why not let Kansas use them? Why try to dictate what Kansas schools think is good to teach besides evolution? Why not say, "Here, these are the best books available by good scientists - please take them and use them!" Why not?

because science teachers are required to teach science, not philosophy... it's really pretty simple

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I also would take a bet they're pissed Kansas changed its definition of the "Nature of Science" from "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us" (2001 standards) to "a systematic method of continuing investigation...to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena" or something similar (text quoted from the August 9th, 2005 draft standards). The elimination of the requirement for natural explanations is unscientific.

Be sure to tell that to the other 48 states: link. This link explains that only 1 other state had a definition like Kansas did. Now Kansas has changed BACK.

EDIT - be sure to follow the link at the top that says "click here to download the complete report" - it gives very specific details. VERY interesting!

And they are evolution-unfriendly (at least the August draft is - the text of the standards passed yesterday is still not up on their site). I didn't say ANTI-evolution. There is a distinction. They are evolution-unfriendly because they single evolution out as a theory to be disputed, and they over-emphasize the degree to which it is questioned. They are not anti-evolution because yes, evolution is still taught as a majority opinion.

Yes, I realize you didn't say anti-evolution However, how can you single out evolution as a theory to be disputed, when you don't even TEACH any other theories? How can it be "unfriendly" when, as I said, we're only talking a miniscule amount of time spent on "here are some possible difficulties with evolution"? I think that "evolution-friendly-but-realistic" is a better description

And I say I admire Michael Behe's courage immensely. I also think he uses circular arguments, treats his material unscientifically, and is most likely wrong. Guts he has. An actual cohesive argument, not so much.

[Count Comfect]

Rohirrim - here's an example of Behe's logic: test evolution by observing hundreds or thousands of generations of a non-flagellated bacterium and seeing if it develops a flagellum. If it doesn't, ID is true.

There is no logic there.

Rian - I mean singling out evolution as a theory dispute instead of gravity, quantum electrodynamics, gene theory, etc. Not as opposed to ID. If we're going to teach how one well-substantiated theory is wrong, we need to teach how all others are wrong. Then you get bogged down and don't actually learn any science - just history and comparative logic.

As for the definition of science: A) one shouldn't backtrack. Just because the other states may not have good definitions doesn't mean a good one should be abandoned. B) I'm looking at the Washington (my state!) standards, and while they do indeed state "Science [is] the systematized knowledge of the natural world derived from observation, study, and investigation; also the activity of specialists to add to the body of this knowledge," they also define "natural world" as "empirically verifiable," something Kansas' new definitions do not, and something much more in line with the 2001 standards.

Moving alphabetically, West Virginia is quoted in that report as "Science is a process of discovery" - but that is only the definition in the WV standards of "science as inquiry," not a general definition. It is also later defined that students must know that "science is based on a set of observations in a testable framework." Again, more naturalistic than the new standards in Kansas.

Virginia's defintion is as the Discovery Institute says.

Wisconsin's is as they say it is - but they miscategorize it, ignoring that it defines it as based on "produc[ing] scientific knowledge that others can confirm with experimental evidence."

Kansas is not as out of line as they'd like you to think. The old standards did emphasize natural explanations over supernatural in a way most other states do not. But the new ones do not recognize the empirical nature of science as much as other states do. It isn't in line either.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rohirrim - here's an example of Behe's logic: test evolution by observing hundreds or thousands of generations of a non-flagellated bacterium and seeing if it develops a flagellum. If it doesn't, ID is true.

that doesen't prove ID it would indicate that evolution doesn't seem to be doing much either, but, i digress, that is an isolated example if you could provide me with a link to more info i would be interested.

[Count Comfect]

http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/?nav=navoa

http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/

I must admit they are slanted (as I am ) against ID, but the quotes are there, and I think the analysis is correct.

ETA: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/20...9_day12_am.pdf That's Behe's actual testimony transcript from one session. Go to the end (or search for "go into effect") and you can have fun watching him dance around how ID actually... happens.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i haven't seen Behe's arguements but, i doubt they could be any worse than the circular reasoning that evolutionists are so very fond of using.

I would agree that circular reasoning is equally bad no matter who is doing it. Of course, someone trying to explain evolution in a silly way doesn't mean evolution is actually a lousy theory. I don't think I ever use circular reasoning when explaining evolution, but if I ever do, please smack me with a Clue Bat. *hugs science*
I try to evaluate theories based on the best and most logical arguments for it that I've heard. I think the best arguments reflect the theory most accurately. The stopping point for me with ID as a scientific theory (obviously it is a perfectly valid philosophy/world view/religious theory) is that an Intelligent Designer must exist for the entire theory to exist. In other words, all parts of the Intelligent Design theory depend on God existing.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

that doesen't prove ID it would indicate that evolution doesn't seem to be doing much either, but, i digress, that is an isolated example if you could provide me with a link to more info i would be interested.

It could also suggest that the factors weren't controlled in the experiment that should have been, the experiment was approached in the wrong way, the scientists were asking the wrong questions, or a number of other factors. Evolving bacteria is very complex; it's highly possible that mistakes or oversights were made in the experiment. (But as you mentioned, more information would be needed.)

Another possibility is that neither ID nor evolution are true. (Though rejection of an entire scientific theory should be due to many diverse and detailed experiments IMO. Accepting or not accepting a philosophy is a personal matter - I think how one evaluates one's beliefs is very personal and hopefully involves careful thought.)

[The Gaffer]

CC, those stories are class.

All intelligently designed things are brought about by an intelligent designer through a process of intelligently conducted design. If it's good enough for Monty Python, it's good enough for biology class.

It never ceases to amaze me that this is a real political issue anywhere.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It never ceases to amaze me that this is a real political issue anywhere.

Me too.

[Jonathan]

From The Australian: Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005


THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

The Vatican have also accepted the Big Bang theory, in case you didn't know

My opinion is that ID should not be taught like it were a natural science because it is not. Discuss ID in social sciences class if it's necessary.

The creationism/intelligent design/evolution debate is pretty much concentrated to America (Canada has imported some of it). Intelligent design is not an issue in other countries. Well, evolution isn't taught in fundamentalist Muslim countries but they don't value science that high anyway. In the rest of the world, including Protestantic and Catholic countries, evolution is taught in school. The idea of teaching intelligent design is just considered silly and wouldn't have been thought of it wasn't for the fact that everything that happens in America makes it to the news here. The world laughs at America for even having this silly debate.

America is different from the backward countries of the middle and far east. America is the world leader of most sciences and the most brilliant scientists on this planet live in the US. Some of the best universities are American and the Nobel Prize is in most cases won by Americans. Therefore it is unfortunate that states like Kansas make the whole country look bad in the eyes of the world.


About time I post in this thread, since I'm interested in creationism, evolution and the debate surrounding the two of them. I skimmed through all of the 16 pages just to get a little Ã* jour with what's being discussed here. I like Nurvingiel's long intelligent posts a lot, and RÃ*an's posts are an interesting read too

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The world laughs at America for even having this silly debate.

America is different from the backward countries of the middle and far east. America is the world leader of most sciences and the most brilliant scientists on this planet live in the US. Some of the best universities are American and the Nobel Prize is in most cases won by Americans. Therefore it is unfortunate that states like Kansas make the whole country look bad in the eyes of the world.

Couldnt agree more. I cringe at the very thought that in this day and age we are seriously having this kind of attempt at white washing science with such patently ridiculous and transparently religious notions. It seems like something out of the 19th century or something... And its such a huge waste of time and resources.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

From The Australian: Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
The Vatican have also accepted the Big Bang theory, in case you didn't know

Since when have you guys started accepted things that the Vatican said?

The creationism/intelligent design/evolution debate is pretty much concentrated to America (Canada has imported some of it). ... America is the world leader of most sciences and the most brilliant scientists on this planet live in the US.

I think there is a definite connection here

Glad to see you again, Jonathan! You always are very thoughtful.

So do you think that all SETI scientists should be stripped of the name "scientist", kicked out of all scientific areas, and called names? They're doing the same thing that ID scientists are doing, but ID is really in its infancy while SETI has been around a while longer. They're both looking for distinguishing characteristics of an intelligence of a TYPE (but possibly a greater magnitude in the case of SETI and definitely a greater magnitude in the case of ID) than ours.

I think it's unfortunate what happened in Pennsylvania, because I think ID is still in its infancy. That said, I don't believe in infanticide, either, especially of something that I think is a very viable scientific option. I think it should be explored further. As I said, I think the signal analysis part is especially promising.

[Count Comfect]

Had a post written, then the comp deleted it. Grr.

We're not taking the Vatican's line on whether evolution is science, but rather pointing to it as a source of evidence or belief that the Bible and evolution do not conflict.

America has the most of a lot of things among Western societies . Death row inmates. Fundamentalist Christians. People, period. Not all of these are going to correlate with being a hotbed of ID .

SETI searches for signs of design in things we could design. Therefore, since we know of the existence of at least one actor that is capable of the act in question, we can search for others. ID looks for signs of design in things we could not design, nor do we have any evidence that there is any being who could do so. To take the age-old example of an arrowhead - it implies an Indian, but only if you know Indians exist or have existed. If you don't, it's just a rock.

What thing that's happened in Pennsylvania? The Dover trial? Or 8 out of the 9 Dover school board members getting voted out of office over the ID issue?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11..._board_booted/

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think there is a definite connection here

You were just kidding there right?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think there is a definite connection here

Cackle.

Actually, I think you'll find that most brilliant scientists DON'T live in America. America may have the largest number of them, and it may well have the highest per capita proportion of Nobel prize winners or whatever (though I have no data on that). But there is no cause for complacency.

In fact, I think there is a major cause for concern for American science. There has been a lot of political interference in science lately in the US, and it's increasing.

You have the huge investment by the oil industry in undermining environmental science, you have the president's office dictating what information can be gathered on the effectiveness of sex education programmes, you have a religious concept being promoted to the status of scientific theory to undermine mainstream science teaching which contradicts a particular narrow, some would say fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Now, one of the great strengths of US culture is its diversity. However, if I was American, I would be worried about how science is increasingly being spun by interest groups. I would think that would discourage scientists from working there.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

SETI searches for signs of design in things we could design. Therefore, since we know of the existence of at least one actor that is capable of the act in question, we can search for others. ID looks for signs of design in things we could not design, nor do we have any evidence that there is any being who could do so. To take the age-old example of an arrowhead - it implies an Indian, but only if you know Indians exist or have existed. If you don't, it's just a rock.

exactly... it goes back to the heart of what science is... theorizing based on real-world (as opposed to imagined) causes