Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I want to know - if Noah took only two of each species - what did the carnivores eat? Did they just starve? If a lion ate a goat after getting off the ark - then there wouldn't a pair of goats to have kids. Or was there breeding on the ark - so there were a lot more animals that left than went on. Of course - still there was only so many animals the ark could have carried and I'm not sure if many of the carnivores could have survived while their prey gestated.

He definitely took more than two of most animals.

"You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds in the air, male and female, to keep the spieces alive on the face of all the earth." Genesis 7:2-3, NKJV

[Rían]

OK, Starr - you made this lazy person get up and find the verse that I referred to because of your good example

Genesis 6:21
And as for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.

("them" refers to the animals mentioned in the previous verse)

and how on earth did we get to the flood?? *pages back thru posts* oh yeah - BoP brought it up! OK, back to evolution...

[BeardofPants]

Nah, I didn't. LF did.

[Earniel]

The historical evidence for the flood is there in the traditions of the peoples of the Earth. All of them differ from each other in one way or another, but they are there. And that is logical, considering that we believe all people came from Noah. His people would have spread out, and it makes sense that they carried on traditions (Obviously slightly alterred over time and changing circumstances) of such a momentous event.

Yes, many cultures speak of a flood but how do you know it was a global one? Those cultures didn't even know the other side of the world. Wouldn't it make more sense if the flood was more local but streched out to the part they saw as their world? They may even have added to the tale to make it more dramatically.

I heard my Dad tell me once about an island upon which there was an endangered species, which was severely threatened because of changes in the environment. The scientists returned to the island and found that the old species was extinct, but they found four new species, all extremely closely related to the extinct one!

I'd like some more data on that one, please.

The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species.

Since I'm only a very amateur paleontologist, I may be wrong about this but.... if I'm correctly the idea of multiple mass extinctions is a relatively new one. The first ideas were that of a massive one time mass extinction (for exemple caused by a flood or a asteroïd or something like that) or that of a gradual extinction. Now fossil records show in some layers a gigantic amount of fossils, unlike that of the preceding or following layer. And many of these specimen in this particular layer were not found in any of the following layers, which means those species did not live into the corresponding eras. If you can put all the data together and prove that there are several species found in the one particular layer and not in the following so that they didn't survive into the next era you've got yourself a mass extinction. What triggered the mass extinctions, we may not be able to tell but that doesn't mean they did not occur. So the idea of one mayor extinction between the dinosaurs and us is in my opinion a bit dated.

[Methuselah]

As many of you know, science, in its infancy, was persecuted by Christianity. It was a post-Renaissance development that represented a relatively new methodology for determining truth. Previously, societal beliefs were based upon religion. The Romans assimilated all religions into their own religion while ruling a world empire. Christianity represented a threat to the Roman representation of truth, and therefore a threat to Roman society in general. Consequently, Christianity was persecuted by Roman society prior to Constantine. Science also represented a threat to Christianity that grew especially strong in the 18th and 19th centuries. Christian-based governments and power centers therefore resisted science, and science developed historically somewhat with an anti-Christian bias. Obviously, there are many great Christians in science, but there has been a bias in the sense that the development of scientific models has been accompanied with a strict insistence upon the separation of science and religion. I think that was a mistake. Since it is evident that science will inevitably be used to critique religion (as has happened frequently in this forum), one should promote multiple threads of scientific development. For example, there should be a thread of scientific development that only allows models developed independently of religion and there should be other threads of scientific development (what many call pseudo-science) that incorporate religious-based models. This is hard to do politically (even in a predominantly Christian society) because people like to hold to just one model of truth. But if science develops by only allowing models without religious influence, then its conclusions should not be used to discredit religious belief because it has begun with an assumption that the religious-based sources are not trustworthy.

Let's face it. Over the centuries, science has changed hats and clothes many times. The first cohesive theory came with Newton (theory of gravity). His famous force-inertia equations revolutionized intellectual thought. Human beings, being what they are, naturally extrapolated all of his conclusions to the nth degree. Consequently, every intellectual became either a Deist or a closet agnostic (I exaggerate somewhat). Deists believed that since all things could be explained as a result of deterministic force-mass interactions, there was no room for God to interact with society. Therefore, God must have created everything from the beginning like one giant clock and set the whole thing into motion. Nowadays, we recognize a quantum mechanical principle that says that the basic fundamental forces of the universe are governed by chance. Applying chaos theory to this quantum mechanical model, we get that very tiny unpredictable events can completely change the outcome of everything. Hence, Deism is out, although there are still many closet Deists who believe that everything can be predictably explained by these fundamental forces. Nowadays, we say that everything happens by chance in a manner that statistically is conformable with the laws that we observe statistically to occur regularly in nature. What it comes down to is that science will constantly undergo change, even dramatic change, as new discoveries are made. To the degree that a religious document is revelatory, it cannot continually undergo change and revision to conform with current views of truth. Hence, it is almost inevitable that it will conflict with current views of truth. An ant will think the world is flat until he has observed enough to contradict his earlier conclusion. We observe and make conclusions about millions of years and billions of light years through the lens of about one century with most observations confined to our planet. Change is inevitable.

Francis Bacon, viewed by some as the father of science, stated that we cannot know anything for certain, but there is safety in relying upon the principles that are observed through repeated observation. He also envisioned huge state institutions developed for the purpose of making such observations and developing all of these principles similar to the way our society works today. Francis Bacon didn't say that this would define truth. He just stated that there would be safety in such a stance. The recent trendy philosopher Popper makes similar assertions. We cannot know how many observations make a statement true. If we were to try to quantify the probability that we know something to be absolutely true by scientific investigation, the probability that we know something is true is zero (my paraphrase -- sorry if I misquote or misunderstand in any way). Hence, science, when developed separate from religious bias, should not be used to rebut religious views.

[Methuselah]

When God created everything he did so by speaking. Consequently, what we observe in the world around us is as much God's word as what is written in the Bible, and it should be treated with just as much respect. A person’s theology is his understanding of God’s revealed Word. A person’s scientific views are his understanding of God’s creation. Both can be flawed. However, if you really want to know whether Christian revelation can stand up to scientific criticism – and what are valid theological and scientific models for a person holding both Christian and "science" as manifestations of God’s word – then you need to start by trying to develop a biblical model. Give the bible the assumption of truth until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a biblical assertion must be discarded. This is not so easy to do. I would suggest that you start with the biblical genealogies. Put them in a spreadsheet and examine them critically, and you will find that they support the idea of an environmental change occurring at the time of the Flood, and persisting for a period of about 700 years. You may then ask questions about why radiocarbon dating presents a different picture, etc. But you must be open to investigating things at a root level if you really want to understand whether science and the Bible are in conflict – or whether we just have some mistaken theological and scientific views surrounding us.

[Cirdan]

The assertion that science should not be used to examine the "truths" of the bible is almost as silly as using the bible to create scientific principles. Stripping away those ideas that conflict with the bible and adding on religious concepts unprovable by scientific method is both dishonest to science and disrespectful to religion. Yuor just casting unfounded doubt on science while raising bible parables to fact. Your doubt of the very reproducable technique of radiometric dating coupled with a blind acceptance of the flood story as a global event without a shread of evidence other than an old folk tale shows a blinkered view of the world. Radiometric dating has accurately matched the estimated age of formations time and time again. Estimations by stratigraphy are unimpunable; radiometric dating just gives a conveniently measurable technique. There is no evidence that any wild changes in the amount of uranium spread the the earth has changed and there would be an obvious amount of it. The worst aspect of creationism is that it not only seeks to hide science that is inconvenient but also never produces any scientific discoveries itself. It's only product is ignorance. Let science help man understand the workings of the world and let religion help man understand the human soul. A screw driver makes a lousy hammer.

Welcome to the Moot, Methusalah. Your post sounds a bit like a book. You wouldn't be Lief's father by any chance, would you?

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The assertion that science should not be used to examine the "truths" of the bible is almost as silly as using the bible to create scientific principles. Stripping away those ideas that conflict with the bible and adding on religious concepts unprovable by scientific method is both dishonest to science and disrespectful to religion. Yuor just casting unfounded doubt on science while raising bible parables to fact. Your doubt of the very reproducable technique of radiometric dating coupled with a blind acceptance of the flood story as a global event without a shread of evidence other than an old folk tale shows a blinkered view of the world.

I didn't say any of the things you accuse me of. You obviously did not understand my post. In mathematics, if you want to prove something is false, you generally do so by assuming that it is true and showing that it leads to a contradiction. In science, you do a similar thing. You assume a model and then hammer away at it to see if it holds up to inspection. If you find inconsistency, then you either modify the model or go back to the drawing board. The fact that you are unwilling to do this with the bible means that you are completely closed to any investigation of its assertions. I'm not sure why you are posting unless you are on an evangelistic mission to discredit Christianity.

[Cirdan]

I'm not on an evangelic mission to discredit religion. I do believe it has no place in science. If you read carefully I don't mention you except as a greeting. I didn't quote you directly as I would were I critiquing your specific post.

It is generally very suspicious when a poster here heads directly to a non-Tolkien forum. This is a place for people who read Tolkien to discuss ideas as a community, not to stop by on some agenda. If you feel offended by my opinions about the mixing of religious and scientific thought I am sorry, but I do come by them honestly. I like chocolate and I like salmon, but I will not eat a chocolate covered salmon.

[Rían]

completely on a different tangent here, but I'm interested to hear some specifics from the th. of evol. people on what parts of the fossil record, in your opinion, support the th. of evol. (someone mentioned the fossil record awhile back). Could you guys please fill me in with some specifics?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I'm not on an evangelic mission to discredit religion. I do believe it has no place in science.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. When you say "it" ("it has no place in science"), do you mean religion? Well, I would agree that you cannot "prove" any belief system, including Christianity (AND including the th. of evol.) using scientific methods.

But I think what you may be missing is that you can definitely evaluate parts of models, such as (1)the model of creation of the world by evolution, or (2) the model of creation of the world by intelligent design, using scientific methods. Like 2nd law of thermodynamics - evaluate the applicable parts of both models in the light of the 2nd law and see how they hold up. Now do you have a problem with that scenario? If so, could you please explain it to me? See, I'm NOT saying that the Christian beliefs are true if one accepts the model of creation by intelligent design as the more accurate of the two models - we're just talking solely about models for the question "how did the world get here?" and which one seems more accurate (and if several models seem to be reasonable possibilities, then teach them in school - going back to the original thread topic ). I think that it is very unfair, let alone dishonest scientifically, if you throw out a model just because it has a "religious" background. Don't you?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think there's a misunderstanding here. When you say "it" ("it has no place in science"), do you mean religion? Well, I would agree that you cannot "prove" any belief system, including Christianity (AND including the th. of evol.) using scientific methods.

But I think what you may be missing is that you can definitely evaluate parts of models, such as (1)the model of creation of the world by evolution, or (2) the model of creation of the world by intelligent design, using scientific methods. Like 2nd law of thermodynamics - evaluate the applicable parts of both models in the light of the 2nd law and see how they hold up. Now do you have a problem with that scenario? If so, could you please explain it to me? See, I'm NOT saying that the Christian beliefs are true if one accepts the model of creation by intelligent design as the more accurate of the two models - we're just talking solely about models for the question "how did the world get here?" and which one seems more accurate (and if several models seem to be reasonable possibilities, then teach them in school - going back to the original thread topic ). I think that it is very unfair, let alone dishonest scientifically, if you throw out a model just because it has a "religious" background. Don't you?

The only problem I have with it is it becomes a matter of trying to discredit reliable theories, ignoring others, while pushing a metaphysical and philosophical theory such as intelligent design as if it were a scientific theory. There is no basis for ID other than it works backwards from the desired conclusion.

As to your question about evolution, are you asking about all evolution, biological evolution, or human evolution? It's not really a matter of what fossils support it, it is a matter of what changes should be made, if any, to agree with the fossil record. Evolution is based of the entire fossil record so I guess the short answer would be all the fossils.

[Rían]

Cirdan, I'll get back to you later today, gotta run now and pick up my 3 little lovely created-by-intelligent-design kids from school (ps - hope your cold or whatever is making you sick (mentioned in venting thread) is better)

[Draken]

Catching up:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Draken
What an interesting debate. It's not one I hear discussed too much here - it would have as much credibility as suggesting we teach that the Earth is flat and rides on the back of a giant turtle.

I put it down to most of our Puritans getting into boats and sailing away some time ago. Anyone know where they ended up?

Originally posted by RÃ*an
What are you referring to by "it" when you say "it would have as much credibility... " - the theory of evolution? Watch the use of those pronouns!

I think it's clear that the antecedent is "debate", don't you? And if there IS a vagueness of antecedent, how could the cause of that vagueness be the phrase "the theory of evolution" when that phrase does not appear in the sentence I wrote?



And back to the thread, yes evolution theory should be taught: as many people have said on this thread science is about explaining as best we can what we observe of the world. As such it is always seeking (or SHOULD always be seeking) to acquire new data and amend or replace theories that no longer fit these data. Religious (or for that matter political) doctrines are the opposite: they start with an authoritative, handed down view of the universe, with observed data expected to conform to that doctrine. The point has now arrived where data - and the very act of acquiring data - must be denied in order maintain such doctrines.

No science teacher should ever say "this is the truth" when teaching evolution, plate techtonics, string theory or whatever - he/she should state this is the theory that currently best fits the observed data. Creationism should not be offered as an alternative in science lessons because it is not a science. It belongs to the realm of the Sunday school teacher.

[Lief Erikson]

Cirdan, Draken, I think that you are both right that if Creationism has no proof at all, it shouldn't be taught as science, for then it isn't.

I think, however, that you are both ignoring part of Methuselah's post. Draken, you were right in saying that the Bible start with an authoritative, handed down view of the universe, with observed data expected to conform to that Christianity.

But when has science ever sought to find links between Christianity and science? Many times people have attempted to link the the two, but science changes, and Christianity doesn't. For every different perspective on truth that science currently holds throughout time, Christianity cannot be expected to accept. Science continues to find out new things and discard old ideas outside of the Bible, and therefore every shifting view cannot be expected to concord with the Bible. If, however, you want to find out whether there is truth in the Bible, you can't expect the unfair, that truth, or Christianity and the Bible, will be willing to meld to each scientific view.

Methuselah describes a reasonable Biblical model that you can adopt in seeking truth. To find out the truth, I doubt that many people in the science field have tried going by such a model. The Bible gives many hints and important pieces of information that can be used to find the Old Testament's place in history, and after you find the correct place, then you can fit the other pieces in like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. They should all fit together, and you can continue throughout the Chronology, seeking and finding the truth.

Has this perspective been tried by any of you, or by science in general?

[Rían]

My goodness, Draken, couldn't you see that I was teasing you? There were TWO smilies, for goodness' sake!!! Was it agreed anywhere that there should be no humor on this thread? I was certainly NOT trying to put you down in any way. And don't you think it's interesting how the use of pronouns, as opposed to names, can sometimes generate some really funny misunderstandings?

I'll address the rest of the post when I get a bit more quiet time, because it is related to the way I wanted to address Cirdan's post.

[Rían]

ps - let me add that I am firmly opposed to mean-spirited humor, and that I haven't seen any here yet, thank goodness. Now Draken, of course it was completely clear what you were saying; I was purposefully "misunderstanding" a pronoun to make a funny statement (complete with 2 smilies ).

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The only problem I have with it is it becomes a matter of trying to discredit reliable theories, ignoring others, while pushing a metaphysical and philosophical theory such as intelligent design as if it were a scientific theory. There is no basis for ID other than it works backwards from the desired conclusion.

As to your question about evolution, are you asking about all evolution, biological evolution, or human evolution? It's not really a matter of what fossils support it, it is a matter of what changes should be made, if any, to agree with the fossil record. Evolution is based of the entire fossil record so I guess the short answer would be all the fossils.

OK, Cirdan, I'm back, if not quite "later on today" - oh well, close

Well, now I'd like to ask you 2 questions, because the answer that you gave to one of my questions made me think of another question.

#1) Now Cirdan, if you were a teacher and gave me that answer in class ("all the fossils"), I think the school board would have something to say to you, wouldn't you agree ("class, today we will learn how the fossil record jives with the TOE - ok, all of it does! Now on to our next subject..." ) I really was looking for some specific info, because I don't really know what parts of the fossil record you believe support what elements of the TOE and I would like to find out. So let me rephrase the question: Could you please give me several specific examples of which areas of the fossil record support which elements of the TOE? Now you may not know, which is also a perfectly valid answer, because NO ONE knows everything about everything (except obnoxious people who THINK they do, but they usually don't know they're obnoxious, so they DON'T really know everything!), but if you do have some info for me, I would appreciate it.

#2) Now actually I think you worded your answer the way you did on purpose, in order to illustrate the point that you and many other people have mentioned, that a theory should be adjusted if data is found that contradicts it. I agree with the adjustment idea, too, BTW. However, that brings up something that I thought about a lot last night - at what point does a theory become untenable? You see, I don't think that you can say that ALL elements of a theory are open to adjustment, and let me explain why. What if in 100 years some beings from another universe landed here, told us that they created the world and us, showed us their plans how they did it, and created another world as an experiment for us, and the leading scientists agreed that this new data clearly pointed to creation by intelligent design. Would you then say "well, let us adjust the TOE in light of this new and convincing data to say that we were a product of intelligent design!"? I don't think so. Wouldn't that make the whole "theory of evolution" name totally inappropriate? You might as well just name it "theory of xyz". So my #2 question is Do you agree that at some point, if convincing data comes up, that adjustments to the TOE will be inappropriate, and a new theory should be posed.

[Dunadan]

Methuselah is simply wrong about Science and Christianity. Most Enlightenment scientists were committed Christians. They viewed science as the best means by which to understand the mind of God. In the words of Voltaire, "the clockwork implies the clockmaker".

Of course, you can never disprove religious belief scientifically, which is why it's nothing to do with science and why it's a red herring to demand that we attempt to.

I think it's up to the creationists to justify why their beliefs should be taught as fact. Do you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or is there be some room for interpretation? If so, who says when and where?

Draken - shame on you!

[Rían]

BTW, Cirdan, I know you have a sense of humor - I saw you on the "apostrophes of mass destruction" discussion, didn't I? So please don't take my little joke as an insult, it was not meant to be one.

Interesting fact - when thinking about my response, I was thinking of the "various tenets" of the TOE, and thought the word was "tenents" (note extra 'n'). because I have always heard it pronounced that way. I looked it up and found my mistake, but what was interesting is that tenets and tenants come from the same Latin root word, "tenere", "to hold". One "holds" land and another "theories". Well, you may have already known that, but I learned something new and thought I would share it with you people in case you heard 'tenets' pronounced as 'tenents', too.

One more thing - I was trying to think of an example to show the difference between valid and invalid adjustments, and I came up with the following (which obviously breaks down at some point, but I think will be helpful):

Suppose you wish to state a theory as to what a certain animal is. Someone observes the animal and gives you the following data: "it often lives on a farm, it has 4 legs, it is taller than a sheep, it likes to eat hay, it has hooves." You carefully think about the data that is available and say "well, my theory is that it is a horse." Another person comes along with new data and says "it has a rather shortish, skinny tail", so you look at your horse model and say "well, it's a horse with a short tail; let's trim the tail". Another person comes along with new data and says "its hooves are cloven", so you look at your horse model and say "well, the horse may have had an accident, let's cut the hooves to match the observed data". Another person comes along (with some higher-tech equipment) and says "it has 4 stomachs" (cows do, don't they?), so you say "let's perform stomach surgery" - or at this point, do you say, "well, I think at this point that although many points of my theory matched the available data, it now looks like, given the additional data, that some of the basic tenets are incorrect - let's stop adjusting and make a new theory that the animal is a cow." For, you see, if the answer is a cow, you can never adjust a horse to be a cow.

I thought about that a lot; does that make sense and/or illustrate my point to you?