How can we use science to explore the past and debunk conspiracy theories?

[tiroger]

I've been reading a lot about this controversy about teaching evolution in classrooms, and I have to say that I'm just baffled that we're even arguing about whether or not evolution should be taught in schools. Conservative christians have over taken this country and seem to want to do away with science all together... after all the bible is the only source of thruth and scientists are all crazy liberals, right? Such nonsense! The bible is a book of stories. It's not meant to be taken literally, but you extract the meaning behind thoses stories. Man wrote the bible... science is not based on feelings or beliefs, but FACTS. You cannot ignore that, and believe stories written by man who interpret it however they want. In any case, why is it so hard for them to believe that God could in fact be a great scientist and put the universes out there for us to explore and discover, while PROTECTING it? (but that's a different story, and don't get me started there) It's just really upsetting... no wonder americans rank so low in science in math compared to so many other countries.

 

[Smurf]

I think your interpretation of why they're doing that is a little off but I agree that its getting too extreme
Btw, wasn't there a famous court case about this in like the 20s? America is moving backwards now.

 

[Janus]

I think your interpretation of why they're doing that is a little off but I agree that its getting too extreme
Btw, wasn't there a famous court case about this in like the 20s? America is moving backwards now.

Yes, it was the Scopes trial :

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

Which, by the way, formed the basis for the play "Inherit the Wind", which, in turn, was made into a movie.

 

[Vega]

You have to understand where some of these people are coming from. There are people who believe that every word of the bible is literally correct. If it says the Earth was created in six days, that means six literal 24 hour days. Some of the them believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and what that means is that all the evidence we find such as bones of dinosaurs isn't real. All of that was already in place when the Earth was created, and those ancient animals never lived. So from that perspective, everything that science considers as evidence isn't real, and isn't going to convince them of anything.

 

[devious_]

Perhaps theistic evolution can be introduced. It basically states that the basic material for life was created by an incomprehensible or unknown force/power (God) and was enabled to evolve. It's essensial to note that in this form of evolution, Man was created separately, as in did not evolve from apes, and just evolved within the human subclass. In other words, today's Man is not precisely the same Man that existed, for instance, 5000 years ago. The older Man might have had bigger hands, a smaller skull, more muscles, and so on, but can be classified as a Man only with the naked eye (i.e. only minor features evolved/changed).

 

[Smurf]

I think it should be taught as a theory, like all things, not as fact and that students should be encouraged to think for themselves, but the born-again's don't like that either I guess.

 

[BobG]

I've been reading a lot about this controversy about teaching evolution in classrooms, and I have to say that I'm just baffled that we're even arguing about whether or not evolution should be thought in schools. Conservative christians have over taken this country and seem to want to do away with science all together... after all the bible is the only source of thruth and scientists are all crazy liberals, right? Such nonsense! The bible is a book of stories. It's not meant to be taken literally, but you extract the meaning behind thoses stories. Man wrote the bible... science is not based on feelings or beliefs, but FACTS. You cannot ignore that, and believe stories written by man who interpret it however they want. In any case, why is it so hard for them to believe that God could in fact be a great scientist and put the universes out there for us to explore and discover, while PROTECTING it? (but that's a different story, and don't get me started there) It's just really upsetting... no wonder americans rank so low in science in math compared to so many other countries.

If you had no personal knowledge of either (i.e. - you haven't found and analyzed dinosaur bones, you haven't spent your experimenting and learning biology hands-on, etc.) you're just relying second hand on someone else's word, regardless of whether you believe in creationism or evolution. Which you believe would seem to come down to who you trust more - authors of the Bible or authors of science textbooks. (A more cynical person might say that which one you believe comes down to which one you spend more time reading - you're being 'brainwashed' either way since you're just absorbing material some 'other' person told you either way).

Personally, there's one other thing creationists should take into account that they tend to ignore. The authors of the Bible are either interpreting God's word via 'divine inspiration' or just stating their own personal words of wisdom. Scientists, on the other hand, are interpreting the bible God wrote in his own handwriting. I would think the second is a little more reliable (and believable) than 'divine inspiration'.

 

[PRodQuanta]

I was in chemistry class today and we were talking about the big bang. A couple kids in our class were a little perturbed that we were talking about it, for it goes against their view of god.

When I appeared at Brian Greene's lecture the other day, somebody rudely asked him if he believed in god. His answer was extraordinary, and it goes along with what Vega said. He said that it depends on what your definition of "God" is. If it means a physical entity that placed out planets in orbit and turned on the lights in 7 days, no he doesn't. But if it is the idea, the miracle of what brought us into being, then, yes, he does believe in "god".

Personally, I tend to think that sometimes people overanalyze things, be it either the bible or the literature book I'm reading in American Lit. I think it should be open to interpretation. If we all were to believe everything that we are told we are "supposed" to believe, then we would still be living in a world where if for some reason the sun were to disappear, we would feel the effects of it being gone before we saw it. Fortunetely enough, Einstein found there was something wrong with that. Thank goodness he was open to interpretation.

Either way, you must have faith. Sometimes it is better to think about the possible intentions rather that being intolerant to anything other than the words.

My $.02

Paden Roder

 

[Gokul43201]

Perhaps theistic evolution can be introduced.

Sure, but not in a science class.

If you had no personal knowledge of either (i.e. - you haven't found and analyzed dinosaur bones, you haven't spent your experimenting and learning biology hands-on, etc.) you're just relying second hand on someone else's word, regardless of whether you believe in creationism or evolution.

But surely, most of us have been prescribed antibiotics. And if you're not especially youthful you'll remember that you are now prescribed a different pill for the same infection as the one that you had some years ago. I wish the doc would tell the patient why they don't use the old drug anymore...that way, there's another person in the competition - the author of your prescriptions. Now, who would you rather believe ?

 

[JasonRox]

The Pope accepts evolution and has been accepted by Catholics.

Most people regard Christians as being part of a cult. They brainwash you so bad its not even funny. It's great that most of them are nice and all, but to limit your knowledge to a piece of fiction is ridiculous. Its no better than those Star Wars and Lord of the Rings fanatics.

 

[CharlesP]

The USA is being overtaken by a right wing cult, led by such as Rush Limbaugh, that rejects science, and the intensity of the proponents resembles the Nazi Brown Shirts. It is incumbent on every scientist to fight this movement, however that is a quick way to suffer horrible personal attacks.

 

[Andromeda321]

In the state I went to high school in evolution was a required topic to teach but we conveniently "ran out of time" before we could get to it in middle school. In high school we learned it but most of the time was spent by kids looking nervously sideways because they didn't want to offend someone while speaking. It just seemed such a travesty that such a pinnacle of modern science can and often is swept away under a rug or demoted from the profound implications it really has. Imagine if someone had such a huge vendetta against the atomic structure as they did against evolution: what would you accomplish in any chemistry class? I believe it's the same for biology in this country: you can study around the topic but the fact of the matter is it makes no sense unless you take it in step with evolution.
I think that's the worst thing about the evolution controversey: it denies the big picture to kids across the country and causes some of the sense of it to be completely lost.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have a slightly extreme view on this matter : I consider anyone who tells you that evolution in incorrect to be propagating lies and spreading misinformation and ignorance.

It irks, nay angers, me no end that a modern society can watch calmly while this crime is being committed every single day.

 

[JasonRox]

 

[Leonidas]

1. First of all, Tiroger... you are acting ignorant...and insulting Christians. Christians do not wish to do away with science, but embrace it.

2. There is a major flaw in the fossil record... complex organisms are mixed with simple organisms all the way down... This doesn't disprove evolution, it just makes the fossil record a bad source for information... because if you go by the fossil record, one could easily deduce that the T-Rex evolved in the same period as pond scum.

3. How can there be an argument for macroevolution if there is no record of any organism changing species? Where are the fossils of the billions of animals that would have to evolve to change a rat into a bat? The proof simply does not exist.

 

[tiroger]

1. First of all, Tiroger... you are acting ignorant...and insulting Christians. Christians do not wish to do away with science, but embrace it.

Exactly in what way have christians embrace science? I can give you so many examples where christians just choose to ignore science, most notably stem cell research and evolution. The only reason they accept chemistry, physics and math is because it doesn't go against their beliefs of genesis.

2. There is a major flaw in the fossil record... complex organisms are mixed with simple organisms all the way down... This doesn't disprove evolution, it just makes the fossil record a bad source for information... because if you go by the fossil record, one could easily deduce that the T-Rex evolved in the same period as pond scum.

I am not saying you should accept everything without a critical eye, but you just cannot ignore something when there is some evidence. When was the last time someone came up with evidence to support genesis?

3. How can there be an argument for macroevolution if there is no record of any organism changing species? Where are the fossils of the billions of animals that would have to evolve to change a rat into a bat? The proof simply does not exist.

Please go back and read what evolution is about. Evolution never stated that a rat changed into a bat or man evolved from a monkey. All evolution says is that THEY SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is key to understanding what evolution is all about.

 

[tiroger]

Exactly in what way have christians embrace science? I can give you so many examples where christians just choose to ignore science, most notably stem cell research and evolution. The only reason they accept chemistry, physics and math is because it doesn't go against their beliefs of genesis.

I am not saying you should accept everything without a critical eye, but you just cannot ignore something when there is some evidence. When was the last time someone came up with evidence to support genesis?

Please go back and read what evolution is about. Evolution never stated that a rat changed into a bat or man evolved from a monkey. All evolution says is that THEY SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is key to understanding what evolution is all about.

 

[russ_watters]

Leonidas, your objections are based on misconceptions - simple misconceptions that could be cleared up with 5 minutes on Talk-Origins.com and an open-mind. Sorry, but the ignorance is yours.

 

[russ_watters]

Exactly in what way have christians embrace science?

Setting aside what I just said to Leonidas, you do overstate the scope of the problem: the Christians you are talking about are a relatively vocal minority. Many Christians (myself included) are perfectly able to accept science.

 

[Moonbear]

Setting aside what I just said to Leonidas, you do overstate the scope of the problem: the Christians you are talking about are a relatively vocal minority. Many Christians (myself included) are perfectly able to accept science.

Agreed, it is a very vocal minority who don't want it taught. Then a greater majority of people of various religious backgrounds, who do not know enough about evolution to see the problems in the Creationist arguments, who support them in asking for alternatives to be taught thinking they are being helpful in this palliative approach.

Someone above used the word "cult" and I have to say I agree. This view isn't mainstream Christianity, it is truly cultish in my view the way that these people are kept isolated from the world around them and intentionally kept ignorant to keep them faithful.

When I was in high school first learning about evolution, I was still a practicing Christian, and I never saw any conflict between evolution and Christianity. My departure from the church was unrelated to my desire to pursue science. Anyway, I just say this to point out that Christianity isn't incompatible with the learning of evolution, just certain cult-like groups that practice a very different form of Christianity from most mainstream religions.

 

[Gokul43201]

Setting aside what I just said to Leonidas, you do overstate the scope of the problem: the Christians you are talking about are a relatively vocal minority. Many Christians (myself included) are perfectly able to accept science.

Russ, I think you underestimate the size of this population. You seem to think most Christians share your ideas. You are among the minority.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Polls by Gallup have shown that nearly half of all Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

 

[motai]

Polls by Gallup have shown that nearly half of all Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Interesting. I would have thought theistic evolution, which seems far more moderate, would be the dominant viewpoint. I guess I was wrong. The concept of evolution conflicting with Christianity didn't really occur in my mind... then again I don't interpret the Bible word-for-word in a literal manner.

 

[Entropy]

I've been reading a lot about this controversy about teaching evolution in classrooms

Natural selection has been proven to exist because it happens all the time. However, evolution of one completely different species into another has not been proven and the only evidence to suggest it is that some species look similar to others. Keep in mind that natural selection and evolution are two different things.

The bible is a book of stories. It's not meant to be taken literally, but you extract the meaning behind thoses stories. Man wrote the bible... science is not based on feelings or beliefs, but FACTS. You cannot ignore that, and believe stories written by man who interpret it however they want.

You couldn't be more wrong. In fact the Bible teachs you not to basis your judgement off of feelings but instead knowledge. Also science is indead based on beliefs. Ever heard of a postulate?

I don't really care if people do teach evolution in school. I'm already flooded with things that you could call "offensive" to my religion. Every day I'm asked, in school, to participate in atleast something that is directly against my religion but still considered a "school" activity. There are posters all over my school incouraging kids to vote, join the armed forces, give blood, pledge allegence, "show pariotism," or even make Christmas orniments during the holidays, etc, all of which is against my religion. Not to mention my American Government class (I don't hate it, or even really dislike it). We're suppost to due research on the election even though in my religion you aren't suppost to be involved in politics or support government. Do I get in an uproar and protest? No, because I'm not afraid of these things. My beliefs are solidly supported and after all, if what I believe is really the truth, what do I have to fear?

I have to put up with all that crap everyday, and some people have the guts to complain about just being educated about a theory? Please... If one theory is totally undermining your belief system you might want to rethink your religion.

notably stem cell research

That doesn't really have anything to do with any paticular religion as much as it has to do with whether killing human beings for medical science is right or not.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Natural selection has been proven to exist because it happens all the time. However, evolution of one completely different species into another has not been proven and the only evidence to suggest it is that some species look similar to others.

This is not true. Speciation has been observed on a number of occasions. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

 

[Janitor]

... The bible is a book of stories. It's not meant to be taken literally, but you extract the meaning behind thoses stories. Man wrote the bible...

I was raised in a churchgoing family. The topic of evolution rarely came up in sermons, but it did come up now and again in Sunday School, which--for those who have never darkened the door of a church--is where you are placed in what amounts to a classroom with others who are within a couple of years of your age, and the teacher reads Bible passages and other Christian literature and asks the students questions about what has been read. To the best of my recollection, all of my S.S. teachers who spoke on the matter of evolution stated that they simply couldn't believe that we humans are kin of the apes.

There are some scriptures that talk about things in what the S.S. teachers admitted was a poetic way. For instance, the teachers I had did not insist that our planet is a rectangle just because the Bible mentions "the four corners of the Earth." But they took the Garden of Eden story of Genesis quite literally.

As to who wrote the Bible, I got the feeling that the majority view in this church was that God basically dictated His words to the original writers.

A question then arises as to whether the translations that we have today are just as inerrant as the original dictated-from-the-Lord version would have been. My grandmother was quite insistent that the King James version that she grew up with was the True one, and that the Revised Standard and other competing translations were flawed and should not be used.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ, I think you underestimate the size of this population. You seem to think most Christians share your ideas. You are among the minority.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Polls by Gallup have shown that nearly half of all Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

I had no idea how prevalent such ideas were until I moved to the midwest. I understand why Russ thinks it's such a small percentage of the population, since he's in Philly. When I lived in NJ, I had never met any fundamentalist Christians, and was sure they were just a small cult.

 

[Moonbear]

I have to put up with all that crap everyday, and some people have the guts to complain about just being educated about a theory? Please... If one theory is totally undermining your belief system you might want to rethink your religion.

Good point! There's also a difference between learning about something and believing it. I enjoy learning about different religions, but I don't believe in them. No reason someone couldn't learn what evolutionary theory states and still choose not to believe it if it contradicts their religious practices.

That doesn't really have anything to do with any paticular religion as much as it has to do with whether killing human beings for medical science is right or not.

This is really a different debate, but it is a religious issue because the distinction of whether or not you consider stem cell research as killing human beings is primarily based on religious views.

 

[Janitor]

I had no idea how prevalent such ideas were until I moved to the midwest...

I think it is also a socio-economic thing. We folks were sheet-rock hangers, plumbers, secretaries and such. (And I am not saying there is anything wrong with doing those jobs. Those of us who did those tasks well had a right to be proud of ourselves.) The churches that have white-collar types sitting in the pews are more likely to be liberal in their interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Entropy]

This is not true. Speciation has been observed on a number of occasions. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

Yes, you are right but that's not what I ment. Sorry, perhaps I didn't phrase my thoughts accurately. I'm refer to completely different species. Such as worms ( or whatever primative invertibrate) into fish or reptiles into mammels. I wasn't referring to closely related organisms such as wolves developing into dogs or brown bears into black bears.

I enjoy learning about different religions, but I don't believe in them. No reason someone couldn't learn what evolutionary theory states and still choose not to believe it if it contradicts their religious practices.

Yep, despite the fact I don't really believe that much in evolution I do enjoy learning about it. It is rather fascinating. One part of biology that I liked was taxonomy, donno why. Same goes with documentaries on extra-terrestial life. I don't think any ETs exists but I enjoy most of the documentaries about them for some reason.

 

[tiroger]

Yes, you are right but that's not what I ment. Sorry, perhaps I didn't phrase my thoughts accurately. I'm refer to completely different species. Such as worms ( or whatever primative invertibrate) into fish or reptiles into mammels. I wasn't referring to closely related organisms such as wolves developing into dogs or brown bears into black bears.

This has got to be the biggest misconception about evolution. Species did not jump from one to the other. The theory states that species SHARE a common ancestor. Reptiles did not just wake up one day and become mammals. At some early point, if you go back on the tree you will see a common point of origin, a species that was neither fish nor mammal. Just like man and monkey SHARE a common ancestor, that was neither man nor monkey. For a very good review, check out this website:

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[tribdog]

There's been no evolving in the classroom on the subject of evolution in the classroom in fact the classroom's devolving about classroom evolution. It's like Darwin said, "You see one bird you've seen them all."

 

[Entropy]

Species did not jump from one to the other.

Thats not what I said. I know evolution from one species to another in one generation doesn't happen (most of the time). Changing of one species into another takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Although new species can be created in one generation through cross-breeding. Evolution does imply that one completely different species arrose from another. Remember an "ancestor" is still a different species.

Just like man and monkey SHARE a common ancestor

What point are you trying to make? That ancestor would still be labled, by most people, as a type of ape which is what many evolutionary theories on human origins say is where we came from.

The theory states that species SHARE a common ancestor. Reptiles did not just wake up one day and become mammals.

Mammals are said to have originated from a type of reptile. I never implied that it was a from specific reptile that was still alive today. So I was correct in what I said.

 

[Phobos]

However, evolution of one completely different species into another has not been proven and the only evidence to suggest it is that some species look similar to others.

As from your later posts, I assume you are talking about so-called "macroevolution". There is more evidence supporting that than you suggest. The evidence is not just based on morphology (existing and fossil species). It's also based on the positions of the fossils in time and geography (e.g., tracing the development through the ages by looking at different rock strata). Genetics futher strengthens the evidence and corresponds to the fossil evidence. Not only are more closely-related species (based on morphology/fossil locations) more genetically similar, but there are also examples of unique genetic markers that can found between species believed to have a recent common ancestor.

Keep in mind that natural selection and evolution are two different things.

No, natural selection is part of evolution. I think you're confusing so-called micro- and macro-evolution. It's the same process. Populations have variations, and sometimes new variations. N.S. is what we use to describe the differential survivial of the better suited variations for the particular ecosystem at hand.

 

[Phobos]

I think it should be taught as a theory, like all things, not as fact and that students should be encouraged to think for themselves, but the born-again's don't like that either I guess.

An important distinction needs to be made here. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact that evolution happens (lifeforms change, as can be directly observed). The theory explains (1) how that happens and (2) what the history of it has been.

It's a misconception to think that, in science, ideas go from hypothesis to theory to law. A theory does not become a law once "proved". Developing theories, and continually improving them, are the ultimate goal of science. A law is just a description of a process (e.g., an object you drop will fall at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s). A theory explains why (e.g., the object falls due to the behavior of spacetime, as explained in General Relativity).

Often times, veteran creationists will accept what they call microevolution (small changes in species such as breeds of dogs) but reject so-called macroevolution (the history of major changes such as fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals).

more on this...
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/theory.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I think you underestimate the size of this population. You seem to think most Christians share your ideas. You are among the minority.

That's disturbing, Gokul - I had no idea it was that bad. Obviously, my perception is guided by my experience: I don't know a lot of people who have less than a college education.