How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

Well, brownjenkins, that'd be fine except for what it does to society. Never mind the fact that neo-darwinism is not the pillar of science that most people think it is (in fact, most of the evidence for it is actually based on the assumption that it is true), it brings about a very poor mindset. If you have come into existence by the random falling together of genetics, this means that you are an accident. You have no purpose in life but your own gratification. The result is obvious if you look at culture today. Self-sufficiency and self-sacrifice are virtually gone. Giving your life for a cause, something considered courageous and noble a hundred years ago, makes you a lunatic today. There are many other elements responsible for this, but teaching kids that they came from a puddle of goo certainly rank high on my list.
Then there is this idea that somehow evolution and humanism have the scientific high ground over superstitious ideas like creationism, which is really quite amusing. We're talking about something that happened long before any of us were born. The scientific method includes observation and experimentation. You can't proove _anything_ happened before you existed. You can look at the evidence and try to form some kind of conclusion with it but in the end, it's still based in faith of some kind.
Most people are not aware of how these pseudo-"scientists" arrive at most of their "facts." Radiometric dating methods are sketchy at best, and results that don't fit the evolutionary model are thrown out. (Incidentally, such tests have been done on things known to be a couple of hundred years old and returned numbers in the millions) When a fossil is to be dated, they look at where it is on the "geologic column" and see when the animal should have evolved and use that date. When asked how they know how old rocks in that layer are, they tell you that it is because of the fossils contained in it.
In short, simply giving kids the scientific criticisms of evolution is no more unscientific than the theory itself.

Well, brownjenkins, that'd be fine except for what it does to society. Never mind the fact that neo-darwinism is not the pillar of science that most people think it is (in fact, most of the evidence for it is actually based on the assumption that it is true), it brings about a very poor mindset. If you have come into existence by the random falling together of genetics, this means that you are an accident. You have no purpose in life but your own gratification. The result is obvious if you look at culture today. Self-sufficiency and self-sacrifice are virtually gone. Giving your life for a cause, something considered courageous and noble a hundred years ago, makes you a lunatic today. There are many other elements responsible for this, but teaching kids that they came from a puddle of goo certainly rank high on my list.
Then there is this idea that somehow evolution and humanism have the scientific high ground over superstitious ideas like creationism, which is really quite amusing. We're talking about something that happened long before any of us were born. The scientific method includes observation and experimentation. You can't proove _anything_ happened before you existed. You can look at the evidence and try to form some kind of conclusion with it but in the end, it's still based in faith of some kind.
Most people are not aware of how these pseudo-"scientists" arrive at most of their "facts." Radiometric dating methods are sketchy at best, and results that don't fit the evolutionary model are thrown out. (Incidentally, such tests have been done on things known to be a couple of hundred years old and returned numbers in the millions) When a fossil is to be dated, they look at where it is on the "geologic column" and see when the animal should have evolved and use that date. When asked how they know how old rocks in that layer are, they tell you that it is because of the fossils contained in it.
In short, simply giving kids the scientific criticisms of evolution is no more unscientific than the theory itself.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Well, brownjenkins, that'd be fine except for what it does to society. Never mind the fact that neo-darwinism is not the pillar of science that most people think it is (in fact, most of the evidence for it is actually based on the assumption that it is true), it brings about a very poor mindset. If you have come into existence by the random falling together of genetics, this means that you are an accident. You have no purpose in life but your own gratification. The result is obvious if you look at culture today. Self-sufficiency and self-sacrifice are virtually gone. Giving your life for a cause, something considered courageous and noble a hundred years ago, makes you a lunatic today. There are many other elements responsible for this, but teaching kids that they came from a puddle of goo certainly rank high on my list.

Evolution never claimed to the pillar of science (frankly I might vote for mathematics as pillar of science but that's another topic), nor did it ever assume to determine the purpose of life. We have religion to try that one. Why must evolution always be seen as the opposite of religion? They're two totally different areas.

I also think you can hardly try to blame evolution for modern moral decay! Although I must say it is one of the more original anti-evolution arguments I have heard so far. I do not see why being the product of evolution rather than devine intervention makes my -makes anyone's- life less valuable.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Well, brownjenkins, that'd be fine except for what it does to society. Never mind the fact that neo-darwinism is not the pillar of science that most people think it is (in fact, most of the evidence for it is actually based on the assumption that it is true), it brings about a very poor mindset. If you have come into existence by the random falling together of genetics, this means that you are an accident. You have no purpose in life but your own gratification. The result is obvious if you look at culture today. Self-sufficiency and self-sacrifice are virtually gone. Giving your life for a cause, something considered courageous and noble a hundred years ago, makes you a lunatic today. There are many other elements responsible for this, but teaching kids that they came from a puddle of goo certainly rank high on my list.

Evolution never claimed to the pillar of science (frankly I might vote for mathematics as pillar of science but that's another topic), nor did it ever assume to determine the purpose of life. We have religion to try that one. Why must evolution always be seen as the opposite of religion? They're two totally different areas.

I also think you can hardly try to blame evolution for modern moral decay! Although I must say it is one of the more original anti-evolution arguments I have heard so far. I do not see why being the product of evolution rather than devine intervention makes my -makes anyone's- life less valuable.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Well, brownjenkins, that'd be fine except for what it does to society. Never mind the fact that neo-darwinism is not the pillar of science that most people think it is (in fact, most of the evidence for it is actually based on the assumption that it is true), it brings about a very poor mindset. If you have come into existence by the random falling together of genetics, this means that you are an accident. You have no purpose in life but your own gratification. The result is obvious if you look at culture today. Self-sufficiency and self-sacrifice are virtually gone. Giving your life for a cause, something considered courageous and noble a hundred years ago, makes you a lunatic today. There are many other elements responsible for this, but teaching kids that they came from a puddle of goo certainly rank high on my list.

you are making many sweeping generalizations that i'd say are far from true... the "good old days" vs. people who "only care about themselves" now... one only has to look at the human condition around the world to realize that we have done quite a lot to help the less fortunate around us... and those dudes from one hundred years ago weren't all saints either

as far as the "You have no purpose in life but your own gratification." ... we had a discussion on this extensively a while back... read some of my posts (and some others) in this thread if you like... bottom line, some people find meaning in existence itself (like me )

i have zero religious beliefs... i don't know whether god exists or not, and frankly, i don't really care all that much... i'll find out one of these days anyway

but far from making it all meaningless, it makes each moment all the more important... and to enjoy this life, i'm intelligent enough to realize that i'll have a much better experience appreciating and loving others as opposed to thinking of only myself... it is an end in itself... and loving others inspires responses in kind... we are a social animal, and social interaction is what gives us meaning... nothing bigger than that is needed

besides... even if your concerns are true, that kind of discussion would be better left to philosophy class, not science

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Then there is this idea that somehow evolution and humanism have the scientific high ground over superstitious ideas like creationism, which is really quite amusing. We're talking about something that happened long before any of us were born. The scientific method includes observation and experimentation. You can't proove _anything_ happened before you existed. You can look at the evidence and try to form some kind of conclusion with it but in the end, it's still based in faith of some kind.
Most people are not aware of how these pseudo-"scientists" arrive at most of their "facts." Radiometric dating methods are sketchy at best, and results that don't fit the evolutionary model are thrown out. (Incidentally, such tests have been done on things known to be a couple of hundred years old and returned numbers in the millions) When a fossil is to be dated, they look at where it is on the "geologic column" and see when the animal should have evolved and use that date. When asked how they know how old rocks in that layer are, they tell you that it is because of the fossils contained in it.
In short, simply giving kids the scientific criticisms of evolution is no more unscientific than the theory itself.

there is no "high ground" in real science... it is all theory... even our own existence can be questioned... the most important science for students is the stuff that works and helps us predict future events... evolutionism (at least on a "micro" scale, as RÃ*an likes to say ) does help us with all kinds of things, from predicting disease mutation to the changes in insects that attack food crops... it may not be the only thing that influences are biological world, but it is certainly part of it

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Well, brownjenkins, that'd be fine except for what it does to society. Never mind the fact that neo-darwinism is not the pillar of science that most people think it is (in fact, most of the evidence for it is actually based on the assumption that it is true), it brings about a very poor mindset. If you have come into existence by the random falling together of genetics, this means that you are an accident. You have no purpose in life but your own gratification. The result is obvious if you look at culture today. Self-sufficiency and self-sacrifice are virtually gone. Giving your life for a cause, something considered courageous and noble a hundred years ago, makes you a lunatic today. There are many other elements responsible for this, but teaching kids that they came from a puddle of goo certainly rank high on my list.

you are making many sweeping generalizations that i'd say are far from true... the "good old days" vs. people who "only care about themselves" now... one only has to look at the human condition around the world to realize that we have done quite a lot to help the less fortunate around us... and those dudes from one hundred years ago weren't all saints either

as far as the "You have no purpose in life but your own gratification." ... we had a discussion on this extensively a while back... read some of my posts (and some others) in this thread if you like... bottom line, some people find meaning in existence itself (like me )

i have zero religious beliefs... i don't know whether god exists or not, and frankly, i don't really care all that much... i'll find out one of these days anyway

but far from making it all meaningless, it makes each moment all the more important... and to enjoy this life, i'm intelligent enough to realize that i'll have a much better experience appreciating and loving others as opposed to thinking of only myself... it is an end in itself... and loving others inspires responses in kind... we are a social animal, and social interaction is what gives us meaning... nothing bigger than that is needed

besides... even if your concerns are true, that kind of discussion would be better left to philosophy class, not science

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Then there is this idea that somehow evolution and humanism have the scientific high ground over superstitious ideas like creationism, which is really quite amusing. We're talking about something that happened long before any of us were born. The scientific method includes observation and experimentation. You can't proove _anything_ happened before you existed. You can look at the evidence and try to form some kind of conclusion with it but in the end, it's still based in faith of some kind.
Most people are not aware of how these pseudo-"scientists" arrive at most of their "facts." Radiometric dating methods are sketchy at best, and results that don't fit the evolutionary model are thrown out. (Incidentally, such tests have been done on things known to be a couple of hundred years old and returned numbers in the millions) When a fossil is to be dated, they look at where it is on the "geologic column" and see when the animal should have evolved and use that date. When asked how they know how old rocks in that layer are, they tell you that it is because of the fossils contained in it.
In short, simply giving kids the scientific criticisms of evolution is no more unscientific than the theory itself.

there is no "high ground" in real science... it is all theory... even our own existence can be questioned... the most important science for students is the stuff that works and helps us predict future events... evolutionism (at least on a "micro" scale, as RÃ*an likes to say ) does help us with all kinds of things, from predicting disease mutation to the changes in insects that attack food crops... it may not be the only thing that influences are biological world, but it is certainly part of it

Ok, this could be taken the wrong way when I ask this, so please understand that the question is only rhetorical. If you are the product of random chance, why does your life have value?

Also, I am not saying that evolution is the opposite of religion, I'm saying that it _is_ religion. It is an attempt to explain how things got here. Since we weren't there to actually observe the origins of life, we can only speculate as to what the evidence around us means. Science, real science, is not in opposition to the Bible since there's no one who was alive then to say otherwise.

Ok, this could be taken the wrong way when I ask this, so please understand that the question is only rhetorical. If you are the product of random chance, why does your life have value?

Also, I am not saying that evolution is the opposite of religion, I'm saying that it _is_ religion. It is an attempt to explain how things got here. Since we weren't there to actually observe the origins of life, we can only speculate as to what the evidence around us means. Science, real science, is not in opposition to the Bible since there's no one who was alive then to say otherwise.

Just caught the middle of that paragraph there . You are right in that _natural selection_ does occur. But natural selection only removes genetic material from the pool. It cannot add it.

Just caught the middle of that paragraph there . You are right in that _natural selection_ does occur. But natural selection only removes genetic material from the pool. It cannot add it.

[Rían]

Has ANYONE read my link with the proposed changes to see the actual FACTS of what they are proposing to change/add/delete?

And I repeat - they are NOT - repeat again - NOT - proposing that creationism, ID, or any other concept be taught.

[Rían]

Has ANYONE read my link with the proposed changes to see the actual FACTS of what they are proposing to change/add/delete?

And I repeat - they are NOT - repeat again - NOT - proposing that creationism, ID, or any other concept be taught.

[The Gaffer]

I read them, Rian. I also read the curriculum notes and couple of other articles about it. It was interesting, and thanks for alerting me to an unsubtle attempt to undermine the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools.

Like I said, when I did Higher Chemistry in school, I had to "unlearn" a whole bunch of stuff I'd learned for O Grade the years before. If you're serious about teaching science to kids, I don't think it'll help them to introduce philosophy of science and method at that stage.

All science is subject to change. As Earniel pointed out, mathematics is the only science we can have complete certainty about. So we have to ask ourselves, why does it matter so much in the context of evolution?

EDIT: I presume we've all read the piece in the Onion about Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

Also, I think that if a person thinks "evolution => life is meaningless" then they're totally missing the point, along the lines brownjenkins said. For my own perspective, my materialistic atheism increases my conception of the value of life (including and especially others' lives) rather than decreasing it.

[The Gaffer]

I read them, Rian. I also read the curriculum notes and couple of other articles about it. It was interesting, and thanks for alerting me to an unsubtle attempt to undermine the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools.

Like I said, when I did Higher Chemistry in school, I had to "unlearn" a whole bunch of stuff I'd learned for O Grade the years before. If you're serious about teaching science to kids, I don't think it'll help them to introduce philosophy of science and method at that stage.

All science is subject to change. As Earniel pointed out, mathematics is the only science we can have complete certainty about. So we have to ask ourselves, why does it matter so much in the context of evolution?

EDIT: I presume we've all read the piece in the Onion about Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

Also, I think that if a person thinks "evolution => life is meaningless" then they're totally missing the point, along the lines brownjenkins said. For my own perspective, my materialistic atheism increases my conception of the value of life (including and especially others' lives) rather than decreasing it.

I'm sincerely curious as to how believing that there is nothing outside of the natural world can _improve_ the value of your life if you are honest with yourself.

I'm sincerely curious as to how believing that there is nothing outside of the natural world can _improve_ the value of your life if you are honest with yourself.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Ok, this could be taken the wrong way when I ask this, so please understand that the question is only rhetorical. If you are the product of random chance, why does your life have value?

read my posts in the thread i linked

the short answer... it has value for me because i choose to give it value

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Also, I am not saying that evolution is the opposite of religion, I'm saying that it _is_ religion. It is an attempt to explain how things got here. Since we weren't there to actually observe the origins of life, we can only speculate as to what the evidence around us means. Science, real science, is not in opposition to the Bible since there's no one who was alive then to say otherwise.

evolution is a theory... deductions made by observing evidence... and also subject to constant change and modifications... there is nothing wrong with criticizing it in part, or in whole... or even discarding it for a better theory down the line

the bible, on the other hand, "is set in stone"... it cannot be changed or modified, and some even take issue with modifying interpretations

both are speculations or "belief systems"... but one is influenced and modified by real world observations... the other is not... that is why one is science and the other is not

to put it another way... scientific research is open-ended... you observe the world and theorize... biblical research is a closed system... you observe the world and try to fit it to a theory that has already been made and cannot be changed... it is just as counterproductive as someone saying that evolution is not theory, but fact... and only looking for ways to further prove this fact

it doesn't make either right or wrong... but they are quite different

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Ok, this could be taken the wrong way when I ask this, so please understand that the question is only rhetorical. If you are the product of random chance, why does your life have value?

read my posts in the thread i linked

the short answer... it has value for me because i choose to give it value

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Also, I am not saying that evolution is the opposite of religion, I'm saying that it _is_ religion. It is an attempt to explain how things got here. Since we weren't there to actually observe the origins of life, we can only speculate as to what the evidence around us means. Science, real science, is not in opposition to the Bible since there's no one who was alive then to say otherwise.

evolution is a theory... deductions made by observing evidence... and also subject to constant change and modifications... there is nothing wrong with criticizing it in part, or in whole... or even discarding it for a better theory down the line

the bible, on the other hand, "is set in stone"... it cannot be changed or modified, and some even take issue with modifying interpretations

both are speculations or "belief systems"... but one is influenced and modified by real world observations... the other is not... that is why one is science and the other is not

to put it another way... scientific research is open-ended... you observe the world and theorize... biblical research is a closed system... you observe the world and try to fit it to a theory that has already been made and cannot be changed... it is just as counterproductive as someone saying that evolution is not theory, but fact... and only looking for ways to further prove this fact

it doesn't make either right or wrong... but they are quite different

[The Gaffer]

I think brownjenkins gave a good account of that.

[The Gaffer]

I think brownjenkins gave a good account of that.