Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[Ivan Seeking]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith. Many religions teach that our very reason for existing is so that each of us can make a choice. Evolution theory and science in general can be viewed as just another part of the test. So yes, it is pointless to argue these issues with someone who has based their life on faith and who takes the bible literally. You will only be seen as another part of the test. Ironically, you may even strengthen their faith by trying to argue the point - make one mistake and it will be seen as proof that you are wrong. And even if you never make a mistake, without a common frame of reference, your arguments will not be seen as compelling. They will be taken as nothing but a bunch of double-talk and mumbo jumbo.

Of course, many [most?] believers do accept the validity of science.

 

[wolram]

This may be a naive question, but do we actually see evolution on a cellular scale, i mean do we see cells with advantageous adaptions, is radiation a factor.

 

[mgb_phys]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith. Many religions teach that our very reason for existing is so that each of us can make a choice. Evolution theory and science in general can be viewed as just another part of the test. So yes, it is pointless to argue these issues with someone who has based their life on faith and who takes the bible literally. You will only be seen as another part of the test.

And don't mention the Babel Fish to them

 

[mgb_phys]

This may be a naive question, but do we actually see evolution on a cellular scale, i mean do we see cells with advantageous adaptions, is radiation a factor.

Yes - just go to a hospital and you will meet lots of bacteria cells that have evolved recently

 

[wolram]

I should have asked , do we see individual cells clumping together to form a better organism,
what is the simplest multi cellular organism, do we see adventagous adaptations?

 

[Hurkyl]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith.

I'm not really convinced that's the actual motiviation, as opposed to simply being an symptom of some other motiviation (e.g. peer pressure, or a desire to rationalize something) It would be interesting to know if these examples really are different than other examples of anti-intellectualism, though I suppose that would be beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[The Dagda]

The motivations are complex, on one hand they are looking at something with fear and animosity that attacks, as they see it, their faith in the inerrancy of The Bible. And on the other there is a need to evangelise their position. There is in some a genuine concern that if you do not accept their version of the faith you are going to hell; when motivated by such considerations, those who genuinely believe are certain that you are wrong, and will only come to a rational conclusion by themselves when exposed to rational concerns. There are of course social pressures as well, many people are exposed to little in the way of education, or are told that that education is false. When most everyone around you in your social community is sure science is wrong, and that's all you've ever been exposed to, it can be really difficult to get out of what is a form of brainwashing.

 

[Monique]

I've had to supervise a student who by religion did not accept evolution, it was a strange experience. In developmental biology you are using model organisms and continually are looking at the conservation of proteins and their functions. According to the student we would all go to hell, because we did not believe in a god. A colleague commented, I rather go to hell than to heaven, at least I'll know all my friends will be there

 

[The Dagda]

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

Mark Twain.

 

[tim_lou]

Hell is awesome! all the intense heat and energy... the ideal place to study high energy physics (or plasma physics)! you don't even need an accelerator!

 

[LowlyPion]

Hell is awesome! all the intense heat and energy... the ideal place to study high energy physics (or plasma physics)! you don't even need an accelerator!

Yes, but you can be sure if physics is your love, Satan will task you with verifying Bose-Einstein condensation.

Miss South Carolina gets to study high energy physics.

 

[Gokul43201]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith. Many religions teach that our very reason for existing is so that each of us can make a choice. Evolution theory and science in general can be viewed as just another part of the test. So yes, it is pointless to argue these issues with someone who has based their life on faith and who takes the bible literally. You will only be seen as another part of the test.

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them? If you ask me, it's a lot easier to believe that the one story the preacher is feeding me is the hoax, rather than every single other thing in all of the universe except for that one story.

Whether life, the universe and everything is a hoax or not is immaterial - what is true is that even if it were, science does a pretty darn good job of explaining how things work within this hoax. If you don't want to believe evolution because of this hoax nonsense, then you ought not to also believe that computers work or that gravity might have something to say about your well-being if you walk out of your sixth floor window.

 

[Hurkyl]

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them?

Probably the same way that some people come to believe in a massive scientific conspiracy to stop new ideas from coming forth, or others that all dissenting political opinions is nothing more than liberal/neo-con propaganda (depending on which side of the fence he is).

 

[baywax]

If you don't want to believe evolution because of this hoax nonsense, then you ought not to also believe that computers work or that gravity might have something to say about your well-being if you walk out of your sixth floor window.

I've never had gravity speak to me that way!

I think the real split in the human evolutionary tree was when Darwin offered us such an insightful look at the machinations of life. Some agreed and some did not.

The theory, if not the "theorem", of Evolution was the mutation in modern humans that was expressed or "accepted" in some and not in others. Today its not the "knuckle dragging" that separates the creationist from the "evolutionists", its the creationist's stubborn adherence to unfounded literal beliefs in mythological tales.

In this case, who has the "fittest" traits to survive the changing environment in which we find ourselves today?

 

[t1nick]

Hypotheis vs. theory
Posted Jan17-09 at 11:26 PM by t1nick
I was a scientist for a decade and have been a science teacher for two decades. I was wondering if it bothers anyone besides myself the way people (scientists included) misuse the terms, "hypothesis" and "theory" all the time. I'm constantly hearing other scientists and media use the word "theory" when they should be using the word "hypothesis".

I was taught that a "hypothesis" becomes a theory, only after it has been tested tens of hundreds of times by competent science peers, who have acquired identical or near identical results. As such, once this "hypothesis has a body of data that is substantial (thousands to hundreds of thousands of corroborating data points), a statement can be made that is about as near a scientific fact as one can get.

I am constantly hearing people throw out the term "theory" to any idea that has recently occurred to them. This may seem like an insignificant point in which to make. However, as a science instructor whose job is to teach the scientific process and the differing levels of data reliability, this distinction becomes quite important.

The new dialogue involving science in our everyday life, and the bandying about the reliance of science at the highest levels of our government impacts the creation of policy and laws governing us all. The lack of understanding of the significance of this essential difference allows the politicians and the general public to off-handedly disregard or dismiss many important scientific ideas and fields of research. It keeps the debate of "evolution" alive by relegating the entire field to, "its just a theory after all".

Even the so-called cable Science stations (National Geographic, Discovery Channels, TLC,
History, etc), and popular science/math -based serials (Numbers, CSI ad infinitum, etc), misuse these terms. They have tremendous influence on students and make our job as science educators much more difficult. Does anybody besides myseld find this trend troublesome, if not ultimately dangerous for Science in general?

 

[baywax]

Hypotheis vs. theory
Posted Jan17-09 at 11:26 PM by t1nick
I was a scientist for a decade and have been a science teacher for two decades. I was wondering if it bothers anyone besides myself the way people (scientists included) misuse the terms, "hypothesis" and "theory" all the time. I'm constantly hearing other scientists and media use the word "theory" when they should be using the word "hypothesis".

I was taught that a "hypothesis" becomes a theory, only after it has been tested tens of hundreds of times by competent science peers, who have acquired identical or near identical results. As such, once this "hypothesis has a body of data that is substantial (thousands to hundreds of thousands of corroborating data points), a statement can be made that is about as near a scientific fact as one can get.

I am constantly hearing people throw out the term "theory" to any idea that has recently occurred to them. This may seem like an insignificant point in which to make. However, as a science instructor whose job is to teach the scientific process and the differing levels of data reliability, this distinction becomes quite important.

The new dialogue involving science in our everyday life, and the bandying about the reliance of science at the highest levels of our government impacts the creation of policy and laws governing us all. The lack of understanding of the significance of this essential difference allows the politicians and the general public to off-handedly disregard or dismiss many important scientific ideas and fields of research. It keeps the debate of "evolution" alive by relegating the entire field to, "its just a theory after all".

Even the so-called cable Science stations (National Geographic, Discovery Channels, TLC,
History, etc), and popular science/math -based serials (Numbers, CSI ad infinitum, etc), misuse these terms. They have tremendous influence on students and make our job as science educators much more difficult. Does anybody besides myseld find this trend troublesome, if not ultimately dangerous for Science in general?

Yes?

The same thing is happening to a number of words. For instance, no one knows what "love" means anymore because its used in so many opposing contexts.

 

[tribdog]

I was taught that a "hypothesis" becomes a theory, only after it has been tested tens of hundreds of times by competent science peers, who have acquired identical or near identical results.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

 

[phyzmatix]

And even if you never make a mistake, without a common frame of reference, your arguments will not be seen as compelling. They will be taken as nothing but a bunch of double-talk and mumbo jumbo.

The irony of my experience is that, even WITH a common frame of reference, your arguments can be taken as nothing but wordplay. Now, I am the first to admit that words and sentences are very often ambiguous, but a discussion that I've had on a previous occasion comes to mind (to give an example of what I mean):

Me: According to the bible, god is the alpha and the omega, right?
Other: Yes
Me: So you're saying god is everything?
Other: Yes
Me: Also, god is perfect.
Other: Yes

*frame of reference established*

Me: So then even rape and murder are acts of god and therefore perfect acts?
Other: No, that's the devil.
Me: But surely the devil is part of god seeing that god is everything and we've established that there is nothing "outside of god" and that god is perfect, so the devil must be perfect and therefore all the "work of the devil" must also be perfect through extension of these definitions.
Other: It doesn't work like that. We cannot understand these things.

Needless to say, that was the end of that discussion.

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them? If you ask me, it's a lot easier to believe that the one story the preacher is feeding me is the hoax, rather than every single other thing in all of the universe except for that one story.

You're applying logic and reason again

 

[The Dagda]

Yes?

The same thing is happening to a number of words. For instance, no one knows what "love" means anymore because its used in so many opposing contexts.

No one ever knew what love means, that we leave to poets and other artists.

t1nick: couldn't agree more. String theory anyone?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The irony of my experience is that, even WITH a common frame of reference, your arguments can be taken as nothing but wordplay.

My point was that since they have no scientific training, many people have no confidence in scientific theories.

Now, I am the first to admit that words and sentences are very often ambiguous, but a discussion that I've had on a previous occasion comes to mind (to give an example of what I mean):

Me: According to the bible, god is the alpha and the omega, right?
Other: Yes
Me: So you're saying god is everything?
Other: Yes
Me: Also, god is perfect.
Other: Yes

*frame of reference established*

Me: So then even rape and murder are acts of god and therefore perfect acts?
Other: No, that's the devil.
Me: But surely the devil is part of god seeing that god is everything and we've established that there is nothing "outside of god" and that god is perfect, so the devil must be perfect and therefore all the "work of the devil" must also be perfect through extension of these definitions.
Other: It doesn't work like that. We cannot understand these things.

Needless to say, that was the end of that discussion.



You're applying logic and reason again

These are age-old arguments that theologians and philosphers have debated for centuries. Note that we still have theologians. In part, these sorts of logical paradoxes are the reason that we have different religions. So in order to respond in any definitive sense, I would have to choose a particular religion and give your their answer. But, yes, if we accept the next definition of God - onmiscience - then we can justify the position that the limitations lie with us and our use of language. There is also the view that the significance of events are artificially inflated by our own limited view of the grand purpose of life,the universe and everything. What we see as terrible suffering will eventually be seen as part of a clockwork solution, if you will - that in the end, it will all be good. Recall that suffering is seen as a required aspect of serving God. The essential concept of Christianity is that Christ suffered for us. According to some beliefs, we are expected to suffer for God.

Beyond that, the easiest escape is to ask the question: Does light contain dark? You are taking evil to mean "a thing", when many see it as the "essence" of the absence of God. Note that even Satan is believed by most to have once been the greatest angel of all. He [it?] is not considered to be essentially "evil". What makes him evil is that he has rejected God. It is all about free will - not the corporeal object.

 

[baywax]

The whole dilemma reminds me of when you ask a kid why the sky is blue and they say... "because its blue".

 

[mgb_phys]

The whole dilemma reminds me of when you ask a kid why the sky is blue and they say... "because its blue".

Well now you know - its because God makes it blue

 

[Nereid]

Hell is awesome! all the intense heat and energy... the ideal place to study high energy physics (or plasma physics)! you don't even need an accelerator!

But will you still need equations, numbers, and stuff?

What? No crackpots in hell?!?

 

[baywax]

Well now you know - its because God makes it blue

Oh, and I thought it was Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[turbo]

Oh, and I thought it was Sir Isaac Newton.

Aunt Nettie answers questions like this. Check her archives of May 3, 2001 to find out why grass is green.

http://www.dearauntnettie.com/

 

[phyzmatix]

...then we can justify the position that the limitations lie with us and our use of language. There is also the view that the significance of events are artificially inflated by our own limited view of the grand purpose of life,the universe and everything...

I have no problem with faith/belief in esoteric topics or a god figure. In fact, a part of me truly hopes for some form of afterlife and that our lives are somehow the result of the wishes of a divine being. Perhaps this stems from an inherent fear of ceasing to exist upon death, that I wish for continuation. Be that as it may, my dislike of organised religion can probably be said to stem from what you mentioned above. Whatever is out there is probably beyond the scope of our ability to understand it (logically), nevermind trying to explain it verbally. I get irritated with people who are so ignorant of their own limitations that they insist they know what the truth is. This is why I always try not to attack a belief (I am the first to admit that I do not know the truth of the matter either) but rather inconsistencies in their chosen dogma and in this surety that things must "definitely be just so".

 

[Focus]

Guys I think someone needs to prove evolution from ZF in order for creationists to finally believe in it.

 

[vivesdn]

Evolution is proven.

What remains to be proven is the origin of evolution, the origin of life.
1) Appeared as a simple nucelotide that increased in complexity until gained the ability to self-replicate?
2) or maybe it started on a soup of products that was an incipient metabolism?
3) or was God performing an experiment and created a first cell?
4) or maybe life came once or several times riding on a comet?

Third and fourth points do not solve the real origin of life. If it came from outside, how was created there? And if it was created by god, who or what created god at its turn?

But the point that started the thread is clear enough nowdays.

 

[mgb_phys]

Evolution is proven.

Evolution isn't proven - proven isn't a word in science.
what you could say is that evolution is accepted by all reputable scientists working in the field and no observational evidence has been found that cannot be explained by it.
There are detailed aspects that are disagreed on by different people but the overall theory is remarkably well tested.

What remains to be proven is the origin of evolution, the origin of life.

The details need to be determined - which might not be possible if no evidence remains from that far back. But there are plausible theories of the mechanisms for self catalyzing reactions becoming inherited traits.

Yes - you are right, but using loose language is almost as bad as the 'it's only a theory' lot on the other side.

 

[NeoDevin]

Guys I think someone needs to prove evolution from ZF in order for creationists to finally believe in it.

I doubt even that would help. It might help prevent them from convincing others of their nonsense, but I don't think most of the creationists would accept it, no matter how bullet-proof the proof is.