How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Spock]

[rohirrim TR]

for a mod, you sure go off topic a lot

[Nurvingiel]

Hehe. This thread needed some levity, awesome Spock!

Not that there is anything wrong with a serious debate...

Well, the scientific differences between a dead and a live body have been covered.

No one was implying the following, but since souls were mentioned originally I wanted to add that the fact that there are physical differences between being dead and alive neither proves nor disproves the existence of a soul.

I tend to keep religion and science quite separate, though I also do not hold contradictory beliefs (as far as I know), so they must influence each other at least a little.
Personally I do believe in souls; I think there's more to life than the physical world that we see. Of course I have no proof for this, but that doesn't matter. This belief makes logical sense to me, and that's how I like it. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that millions of other people have different world views. Many people also hold similar beliefs to myself - or at least share one idea.
I think you could use the idea of "six degrees of separation" to connect the world view of everyone in the world.

But I digress. Now, what is half of this thread's topic? "How to teach evolution" (implying: in school). When I took a biology course called "Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution" (and got a B+ woo!), I think they did a great job of teaching ToE. Obviously we didn't go into extremely deep detail with these broad topics, but we did get a good grounding in all three.

The way Evolution was approached was, describing the basics - who thought of and researched the theory, who helped (a lot), then later advancements and studies to the theory, and some pros and cons. It was all very interesting. I think it could be taught this way in high school (but less detailed and less difficult).

One important factor, and this was sorely lacking sometimes when I was in high school, was to point out that science isn't the ultimate truth of everything. It's important not to ignore the objectivity of science.

My grade 10 science class was especially bad for this with chemistry. I remember being taught about the Bohr model of the atom, and was told that it describes an atom exactly. Of course, this isn't correct - when I got to university, we studied the four (IIRC) major flaws of the Bohr model. (The only one I remember is that if an atom was really constructed this way, the electrons would slowly spiral toward the nucleus until they crashed into it, destroying the atom. Happily, we can observe this isn't really the case.)

While I don't expect high school students to study the four major flaws of the Bohr model of the atom, I do expect teachers to say at the outset that this is a model describing atoms, not an exact picture of an atom. Fifteen-year-olds are definitely smart enough to grasp this concept.

Now, does this mean that the Bohr model is totally useless because it has four flaws (and they are biggies)? No, of course not. The Bohr model is still one of the best ways to describe an atom. This model can be improved upon as our technology and knowledge advances such that we can more accurately describe an atom, just as Neils Bohr improved upon previous knowledge of the atom to make his own model (IIRC).

I think some parallels can be drawn here with ToE. Yes, it's not perfect, but hey, it's a scientific theory of a complex process that cannot be completely observed - of course it has flaws! There are room for mistakes in science. Sometimes mistakes serve to improve science. If your study is a total bust, you might still have had a good framework or methodology, etc.
The Theory of Evolution is still the best way that science has to describe how the species of today came to exist on the planet.

I don't object to Creationism and other religious theories being taught in school - far from it! I think there should be a Religious Studies class, because already too much is shoehorned into Social Studies, and I think this new addition would be important and interesting.
However, Creationism and Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class. Firstly, because a great deal of material is already taught in this class. But most importantly, because Creationism and ID are not science.
In the end, both require the existence of God. God cannot be a requirement in a legitamate scientific theory, as there is no scientific method to study Him, nor is there any proof of His existence whatsoever. (On a side note, I'd be kind of pissed if there was. Way to ruin the mystery!)
Does this mean Creationism or Intelligent Design are less valid world views? Of course not! Not being a scientific theory does not make then wrong or bad ideas. Science is not the only aspect to one's outlook of the world.
I don't understand why it's important to have Creationism recognised as science, since, as a scientific theory, it is completely rubbish.
There are a number of aspects of my own personal world view that have nothing to do with science. They are no less valid then the scientific parts of my world view. (Because they too are logical and well-thought out.)

Now, I hope that last chunk of my post makes sense. I'm try to say that science isn't the only logical way to look at the world, and religion is not science.


(I thought I had replied after Spock's cartoon, so sorry if I double-posted.)

[rohirrim TR]

i didn't read you whole post because it were long, but you said, "creation and ID are not science" that is true, in a way, but in the same way evolution is NOT science, ergo, should not be taught in school.

[Insidious Rex]

I wont even hazard a guess on how many times you have been corrected on that point.

[Rían]

And we keep correcting YOU, but you don't pay any attention, either!

[Insidious Rex]

Its hard to correct a correct statement with a falicy.

[Rían]

mmmwwwaaaa! *smack*

[Spock]

OK "R" give 'em both 20 lashes with a wet noodle.

Then take a breath and read this "religious news" from DRC.

A few years back, I was in high school and we were celebrating Holy Week (the week before Easter) and we were watching a presentation on the last few days of Jesus. The teacher used a clip from the movie "Jesus of Nazareth" to make his point. As we were watching Jesus carry his cross, a girl in my class asked, "Is this live footage?”

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i didn't read you whole post because it were long, but you said, "creation and ID are not science" that is true, in a way, but in the same way evolution is NOT science, ergo, should not be taught in school.

here's the reader's digest version of nurv's most-excellent post, with a bit of added emphasis

The way Evolution was approached was, describing the basics - who thought of and researched the theory, who helped (a lot), then later advancements and studies to the theory, and some pros and cons.

...

One important factor, and this was sorely lacking sometimes when I was in high school, was to point out that science isn't the ultimate truth of everything. It's important not to ignore the objectivity of science.

...

While I don't expect high school students to study the four major flaws of the Bohr model of the atom, I do expect teachers to say at the outset that this is a model describing atoms, not an exact picture of an atom. Fifteen-year-olds are definitely smart enough to grasp this concept.

Now, does this mean that the Bohr model is totally useless because it has four flaws (and they are biggies)? No, of course not. The Bohr model is still one of the best ways to describe an atom.

...

I think some parallels can be drawn here with ToE. Yes, it's not perfect, but hey, it's a scientific theory of a complex process that cannot be completely observed - of course it has flaws! There are room for mistakes in science. Sometimes mistakes serve to improve science. If your study is a total bust, you might still have had a good framework or methodology, etc.
The Theory of Evolution is still the best way that science has to describe how the species of today came to exist on the planet.

...

I don't object to Creationism and other religious theories being taught in school

...

However, Creationism and Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class. Firstly, because a great deal of material is already taught in this class. But most importantly, because Creationism and ID are not science.
In the end, both require the existence of God. God cannot be a requirement in a legitamate scientific theory, as there is no scientific method to study Him, nor is there any proof of His existence whatsoever.

QED

[rohirrim TR]

here is an article that was sort of interesting click here

[Count Comfect]

Interesting, yes. Accurate, no.

Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

No evidence of any kind provided for this statement - that "the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth." From the rest of the article, the "evidence" in question is, quite simply, that the Bible says so. Which is *drumroll please* not science. While evolution is science (read the thread for more details ... I'm not going to go into the 50,000th explanation of what science is).

The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
They ain't necessarily so
- George Gershwin

[Rían]

I think Lief has provided some scientific evidence that indicates (note - indicates, not proves, because we're talking extrapolations here, just like evolutionists do) a young earth.

I'm slowly getting back energy, after recovering from the candy sale and visiting family, so I'll get to your VERY old question about ID in a few days, Nurv.

[Count Comfect]

The thing is that the old earth is actually a lot more proven than any other part of ToE, because it is based on radiometric dating - decay of radioactive particles - which follow a consistent pattern over long periods of time. Uranium series dating and Argon/Argon dating, to name just two (and actually, if we're getting to "young earth" as in 6k years ago, we have evidence of human habitation dating back over 10000 years in the Middle East, based on a) radiocarbon dating and b) stone tool development).

[Rían]

but radiometric dating based on some assumptions that may or may not be true, and then hugely extrapolated past any possible observation.

Extrapolation is a dangerous thing to put too much trust in.

All I say is keep an open mind

[Count Comfect]

All decisions are based on assumptions that may or may not be true.

The sun will come up tomorrow.
I will be alive a month from now.
So on.

Radiometric dating has actually been rechecked quite a ways out - "calibrated" if you like - based on dendrochronology (the study of tree rings). They have matched up tree cross-sections in parts of the Southwestern US and Northern Europe in sequences that go back about 8-10,000 years, and use those older woods to calibrate and check on the radiometric dates

[Rían]

yes, they have calibrated from tree rings that almost 2 half-lives check out, to several decimal places - then they extrapolate backwards to a degree that should make any competent mathmetician tear his/her hair out.

[Curubethion]

And so, as you said, the tree rings only measure back 8,000-10,000 years. (I assume this is about C-12 dating...)

So, if we can only date back 10,000 years, to 8,000 BC, what support does that lend to the millions-of-years-old universe theory? Past the stated date, you can't know anything for sure.

[Count Comfect]

A half-competent one might tear his or her hair out. A competent one (like the ones they employ) is quite happy, thank you very much. Because although radiocarbon (C-14/C-12 ratios, by the way) dating is acknowledged to cease being useful at about 50,000 years (from those same extrapolations), Argon/Argon dating puts you another several hundred thousand years back (although it can't come as far forward, because it isn't that sensitive) and Uranium Series dating (based on multiple half-lives, of different elements (all over a million years) in the decay series of various uranium isotopes) goes even farther back, to those billions of years, although it too is not sensitive enough for recent events.

This isn't one element. It doesn't ignore mathematical models - it works WITHIN those models, using the correct dating technique for the correct distance in to the past, because they are shown to work.

Even dendrochronology, by the way, ALREADY puts the earth older than Ussher's biblically based estimate...

And guess what? No, you can't know anything for sure. Because you didn't see it for yourself. Hell, how do I know for sure that what people say happened in 1945 happened for sure? I wasn't alive. Maybe George Bush isn't president. I haven't met him. I know that's a bit extreme, but frankly, if you want to push anything past the point of written records (and we know there is civilization before written records, because we find civilizations which don't have writing) you have to rely on something, and that something might be wrong - but you test as well as you can, and yes, you extrapolate. It has to be done, because otherwise you can't say ANYTHING about the distant past - or even the not-so-distant past in some areas.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Even dendrochronology, by the way, ALREADY puts the earth older than Ussher's biblically based estimate...

We can directly observe that the world's oldest living organism is 4789 years old [link]. That would be a bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva), and I believe this particular tree grows in the Sierra Nevada. There used to be two, but some geniuses decided to cut one down to see how old it is. I guess that's why we know the exact age of the other one. I know it would have been hard to core the tree, but sheez, how bad do you want to know!? Talk about a destructive test...

I don't know how radiocarbon works exactly, but if I remember correctly from Chemistry, a lot of elements have a half-life of a fixed number of years. So if you had an element with a half-life of 100 years, and you had 30g of decayed element and 1g radioactive element, couldn't you then determine how long it had been there based on the population function?

P(t) = P(0)e^kt

(I was going to do it but I forget how to use this function. It only takes a few months...)