The jury is still out on evolution

[Ivan Seeking]

"the jury is still out" on evolution

In reality there are people who believe that all theories are mere guesses, even though that moon rock apparently helped contradict a theory that had not yet been repudiated by the church.

Similarly, President Bush says "the jury is still out" on evolution.

Agreeing with him are people in Kansas and Georgia and other places where the word "theory" means something far different than the theory spoken of in science.

In common usage, theory is an unsubstantiated guess.

I got an e-mail the other day from a reader telling me that the lights he saw as a child in the night sky over Hemet were alien star ships. Mysterious lights must be aliens. That's what we mean by theory. [continued]

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=151471&source=r_science

 

[bross7]

Well if I had to choose between either Charles Darwin or George W. Bush for an opinion, advice, or the time of day, I think that it is painfully obvious which one it would be. When your leading argument against science is "it's bad", you don't have very much credibility with me.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hey Canada!

Bush and his ilk are just corrupt politicians and anti-American, anti-science and anti-world. Forget their bull. Proceed.

Evolution's not a theory, but a fact. Leave it at that and proceed.

Try Zero-based science: don't believe anything without evidence and/or "fit" with what we know for sure. Quickly analyze everything and you'll soon see a pattern emerge. Let's call that body of knowledge "reality". Any questions?

There's no such things as god(s) or ghosts or life after death or fate or the paranormal. I just saved you a lot of time, distress, failure and error. You're welcome.

Now, knowing this, what do WE do to save the world, ourselves and all humanity?

Peace and love,
NN

 

[selfAdjoint]

Welcome to PF, Naturalist! And right on!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, the sentiment is nice but the facts are the facts, and one fact is that these are the people running the country. But more than that it speaks to the lack of confidence in science found in those who know little about it. There is in fact an anti-science mentality found in many people these days. I have said this for a long time, and it has finally come home to roost.

I know an elementary school teacher here in Oregon who teachers her students exactly what was stated: A theory [in math or science] is an unsubstantiated guess.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess I should add that to dismiss anything not understood as paranormal nonsense is also anti-science.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hi Ivan,
I'm a bit of a primative at this stuff, but let's go. Are you after the truth and the complete truth and why? Because that's the exclusive pursuit that benefits all to the max. That established, there are two ways that science and knowledge are advanced - to say what is true and what is not true, the advancement of the latter frees up the resources to pursue the former.
No god(s) ghosts, luck fate, and paranormal. What's that leave? Science and reality, dear one - the way, truth and light. All the former are inept, undeserving, cheaters, theives, posers and liars for their own, (mispercieved) ends and not that of the general good and progress which is the whole basis for science. Are you startin' to understand? Supernaturalism's just a scheme to commit fraud. Nothing more and nothing less. Science needs to eliminate it - nothing more and nothing less.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hi Team,
I'm from Nebraska. Go Big Red! I was educated at the finest institution in my state. What I found is we have more than the resources required to dispatch all theism, all religious fundamentalism, all bull forever - but we have not acted on it and are suffering mightily for that failure to act. Let us now dispatch forever the concepts of god(s), ghosts, life after death, luck, fate and the paranormal and free humanity from these horrible scourages that cripple and destroy humanity. If we do this, we will be seen by posterity as the greatest generation to date - which is what they expected of us.
I'm a social scientist - an empiricist. I'm just trying ta get the absolute truth - and, I think, all these so called "great" philosophical questions that have been held "unanswerable" were answerable - and they're easily answered too. As it was in Pre-Copernican and post-Copernican astrophysics. Cut the bull and and all comes clear and we need clarity - and courage - to proceed.
No god(s), ghosts, life-after-death, luck, fate, or paranormal. The task is not up to me to disprove these "theories", but on the proponents of them to prove them to me.

 

[Marijn]

Although i agree with you that people who dismiss the evolution (for discussions sake let's keep it on evolution theory) on religious basis are somewhat narrow minded.
There are already scientists who are trying to get some mutual standpoint.
The stantpoint beeing: Species do evolve but the evolution is directed by a higher beeing.

Agree with it or not, this i think is possibly the only way you´ll ever get some support from the mild to strong religious side.
Religious extremists will never accept anything that isn´t clearly stated in the bible so you can easily write them off.

Now playing the devils advocate: Isn´t the truth just the most commonly accepted idea?

 

[bross7]

The truth and generally accepted ideas can be one and the same, but it doesn't mean that they are so. At times there are always people who believe otherwise when in reality they will be proven right.

The bigger problem seems to be, that the misguided ones are the ones most willing to stand up and yell their beliefs. Science isn't forced on anyone for the most part. That scientific theory is so misinterpreted is a greater indication of the fact that the scientific community doesn't reach out to the general masses to educate them.

Speaking US specific, the two biggest publicity entities, at least in my opinion, are the church and the president/government. These are the groups that are most often heard from, and thus their words are put into the minds of the general population much more frequently. Any time any scientific information is in the media, it is about new "miracle drugs", or big stories that be applied to unrealistic stories (such as the T-Rex tissue and Jurassic Park)

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Good evening scholars,
Marijn: "Now playing the devils advocate: Isn´t the truth just the most commonly accepted idea?"

Right on! You're right on the trail! Your answer: Not at all, and you know better. The truth IS NOT democratically determined. At one time everyone in the whole world, but one or a few, believed the Earth was flat. Truth exists independent of beliefs, being and desire. That's why empiricism is so rigorous and (good) scientists are (relatively) so critical and irreverent. But the truth is the real deal, the only game in town.
Personally I became very interested in the truth and only the truth when I became a pilot. Anything other than the full and complete truth is hazardous to pilots and the more truth and knowledge the better. Pilots have to live in that mindset in order to merely survive. Bull kills at supersonic speed when you're flying. Pilots have become so used to this everconstant pursuit, relatively austere lifestyle that, by the time I came to know them, I found a body of persons who were unique and wonderful for no apparent reason.
Now, let's all become pilots - in our lives and all our many, varied pursuits. We don't take no bull because we can't afford the risk. Throttle up, maintain altitude and airspeed, check all your instruments against each other - and THINK.
The theistic premise is ludicrous - it is not consistent with all else we know and, therefore must be quickly, if not immediately dismissed so we can get on to all other possible solutions. Those few possiblities of what's going on describe better what we sense, experience and know. Ya do have to decide and act accordingly.
This is a ground controlled approach. You're on flight path, on airspeed. Execute landing checklist. Welcome home.

Peace and love,
NN

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hey Northstar7,
We have you on radar.
"The bigger problem seems to be, that the misguided ones are the ones most willing to stand up and yell their beliefs. Science isn't forced on anyone for the most part. That scientific theory is so misinterpreted is a greater indication of the fact that the scientific community doesn't reach out to the general masses to educate them."

All true, but an old problem. The louder they yell and more they try to intimidate and humiliate their opponents the more I'm convinced they have nothing of substance to offer - and considering events and developments of late, they are an extremely vacuous lot. All the more the pity for all of us though.

Science isn't forced on persons because one ignores science at their own peril. Ignorance kills and life constantly enforces the lesson. We love science BECAUSE IT WORKS! Oh! the centuries of darkness humanity endured in it's absence! How many mystics spoke of flying before the Wright Bros really did? And now look - sixty years to go from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility. What more demonstration of sheer peerless power to quickly and really solve problems do you need?
And you ain't seen nothing yet . . . Wait 'til my science comes to the fore. Be of good cheer. The cavalry's comin'.

Peace and love,
NN

 

[Phobos]

President Bush says "the jury is still out" on evolution.

This comment displays his ignorance on the status of the science of biology. For scientists, the jury is certainly not out. The scientific evidence and support for evolution is simply overwhelming.

So that sentiment is what is being pushed to the public by many creationist groups. They reject the theory of evolution (beginning on religious grounds) and are working hard to "teach the controversy" in public schools even though the controversy is non-scientific. They are making no headway in the scientific community.

 

[Phobos]

There are already scientists who are trying to get some mutual standpoint.
The stantpoint beeing: Species do evolve but the evolution is directed by a higher beeing.
Agree with it or not, this i think is possibly the only way you´ll ever get some support from the mild to strong religious side.

Although some scientists may hold that personal view, it is not part of any scientific theory. For one thing, the supernatural is outside the realm of science. Also, there is no well supported evidence to show the guiding hand of a higher being (claims of 'irreduceable complexity' are not standing up to scientific scrutiny). So, agree with it or not, it is out of place in a science classroom. Scientific theories should be built up from the facts and not mandated down from hopes/beliefs.

Religious extremists will never accept anything that isn´t clearly stated in the bible so you can easily write them off.

Except when they obtain political positions of power (school boards, legislature, presidency).

Now playing the devils advocate: Isn´t the truth just the most commonly accepted idea?

There's Reality, and then there's our understanding of Reality. Science doesn't offer "Truth". It offers explanations (best possible from the best possible data at that time).

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Marijn said:
"Although some scientists may hold that personal view, it is not part of any scientific theory. For one thing, the supernatural is outside the realm of science."

Woah!
You're going right past the solution. There is nothing outside the realm of science.
when you realize that, everything about supernaturalism becomes entirely known and knowable. Supernaturalism is not an accepted premise. It's crap and to give it any credibility at all is a mistake. Scientists don't just give credibility to any theory or idea. Supernaturalism has to be dismissed until inconclusive proof of it's validity is shown.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Marijn said:
"Although some scientists may hold that personal view, it is not part of any scientific theory. For one thing, the supernatural is outside the realm of science."

Woah!
You're going right past the solution. There is nothing outside the realm of science.
when you realize that, everything about supernaturalism becomes entirely known and knowable. Supernaturalism is not an accepted premise. It's crap and to give it any credibility at all is a mistake. Scientists don't just give credibility to any theory or idea. Supernaturalism has to be dismissed until inconclusive proof of it's validity is shown.

You are perfectly correct about the rescript of science. The question is whether the approach of science
as it has existed since the seventeenth century, has anything to say about the data provided by supernaturalists. The history of their interactions is not encouraging.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

There's no such things as god(s) or ghosts or life after death or fate or the paranormal. I just saved you a lot of time, distress, failure and error. You're welcome.

No god(s), ghosts, life-after-death, luck, fate, or paranormal. The task is not up to me to disprove these "theories", but on the proponents of them to prove them to me.

If you want to talk about the burden of proof, then it's on you. You are making the affirmative claim that there's "no such thing" as all of those said entities, therefore you have to prove all said entities do not exist in order for your claim to have any validity.

Is it really your agenda to "dispatch all theism"? I can tell you this isn't the forum to do it, you may want to try: http://discussions.godandscience.org/

The theistic premise is ludicrous - it is not consistent with all else we know and, therefore must be quickly, if not immediately dismissed so we can get on to all other possible solutions. Those few possiblities of what's going on describe better what we sense, experience and know. Ya do have to decide and act accordingly. This is a ground controlled approach. You're on flight path, on airspeed. Execute landing checklist. Welcome home.

Not everyone has the same senses, experience and knowledge. In fact if you think everyone sees the world exactly the same as you then you're way off on your own empirical observations. Do you think everyone has the exact same flight path as yours? Do you really want to be colliding with everyone else's jet. At least from your close-minded perspective, at least figure these other pilots are just flying through a lot of clouds and turbulence and write them off as misguided but you're not going to change anyone's mind.

 

[Dr.Yes]

"The jury is still out on evolution."

A verdict is just now evolving out of their deliberations.

If being president is an example of survival of the fittest then, there's probably some evolutionary mechanisim that has determined when/how/why your president survived in a fit manner as president for his second term. Perhaps this is your opportunity to hold him accountable for any decisions deemed inappropriate before he builds his own library with your money and becomes less accessable.

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

Ok, that's stupid. To look at it from an entirely utilitarian point of view, what other theory can explain the evidence for evolution? Really, creationism doesn't explain sh it. Will it help further our understanding of biology? no.

 

[Pengwuino]

There seems to be a hugely misguided anti-religious sentiment on this board that is entirely laughable. According to people on this board and on this thread specifically, it seems like there's a portion of our country that believes rocket ships must be built based off blueprints in the bible and that we are demanding that all professors teach that evolution is stupid. Exactly who are these people? Why have i not seen or heard about any of these people? And why arent any of the schools in my state being overrun and diseased by these people? People on this board make it seem like that's exactly what happen but... I'm not seeing it... where am i suppose to look?

I do find a lot of people like Nebraska who are disgustingly intollerant of peoples beliefs and convictions. I have not exactly seen any priests walk into any quantum mechanics lectures and demand the class be canceled yet I've seen many horrific protests against religion. Comparing all the people i know, anyone whos done drugs, committed criminal acts, and basically act like jerks to people is roughly ... 80% chance fo being atheist (or 8/10 of the people who fit that description are atheists). I'd truly love to hear the basis for this disgusting rhetoric that "getting rid of all religion will make the world a better place" that people such as Nebraska cry out.

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

I have not exactly seen any priests walk into any quantum mechanics lectures and demand the class be canceled yet I've seen many horrific protests against religion.

like...whooo, picturing men coming from monkeys have already almost exhausted their mental capacity. And no, you can't possibly expect them to understand, quantum mehanics...? i mean really, quantum mechanics.

and is it me? or do i see the religious doing most of the protesting?

 

[Pengwuino]

This whole thread sounds like a protest and... well... all i see is me acten on the side of reason :).

Oddly enough one of my professors last semster was a theoretical particle physicist... oddly enough he was religious :-/. Doesnt fit your stereotype?

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

This whole thread sounds like a protest and... well... all i see is me acten on the side of reason :).

Oddly enough one of my professors last semster was a theoretical particle physicist... oddly enough he was religious :-/. Doesnt fit your stereotype?

forgive my pun pengwuino. I'm not exactly blaming religion. I just think that religion and science are separate. religion should not tell science what to think and vice versa. Btw, is that guy John Polkinghorne?

 

[Phobos]

Exactly who are these people?

for starters, check into...
Answers in Genesis
Creation Research Institute
Creation Science Evangelism
Creation Science Research Center
Discovery Institute
Institute for Creation Research

And why arent any of the schools in my state being overrun and diseased by these people?

California may be one of the quieter states (lately, Kansas, Texas, Ohio, and Georgia are making the most news), but they're there...

for example,
1981 court case Segraves v. State of California re: teaching evolution vs. kids' religious beliefs
2004 Science teachers in the Roseville Joint Union High School District rejecting the attempt to add antievolutionist materials to the district science curriculum
2005 - http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/CA/667_creationists_in_california_4_15_2005.asp

People on this board make it seem like that's exactly what happen but... I'm not seeing it... where am i suppose to look?

all the latest updates from across the country...
http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp

I have not exactly seen any priests walk into any quantum mechanics lectures and demand the class be canceled

they take it to the school boards, not the classrooms

If you look at the websites of some of the groups I mentioned above, you'll see that they also argue against other scientific issues besides evolution

Comparing all the people i know, anyone whos done drugs, committed criminal acts, and basically act like jerks to people is roughly ... 80% chance fo being atheist (or 8/10 of the people who fit that description are atheists).

I suspect you have a biased sampling. Something like 10% (at most) of the U.S. population is atheist and I'd wager that a far greater percentage of the population is guilty of one or more of those acts you mention. But this is besides the point. Evolution is not anti-religion, although it does conflict with some religious interpretations of origins.

 

[JonF]

This post made me cringe so hard I just had to reply…

Bush and his ilk are just corrupt politicians and anti-American, anti-science and anti-world. Forget their bull. Proceed.

Ad Hominem

Evolution's not a theory, but a fact. Leave it at that and proceed.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

Facts are statements with true truth-values.

Contrary to previously statements by Nebraska evolution would be a theory by definition and not a fact.

Try Zero-based science: don't believe anything without evidence and/or "fit" with what we know for sure. Quickly analyze everything and you'll soon see a pattern emerge. Let's call that body of knowledge "reality". Any questions?

Axiom: self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

Axiomatic: of or relating to or derived from axioms

Guess what type of system the natural sciences are?

Try Zero-based science

and

don't believe without evidence

and

There's no such things as god(s) or ghosts or life after death or fate or the paranormal.

I sense a fallacy… Denying the Antecedent

Now, knowing this, what do WE do to save the world, ourselves and all humanity?

I suggest we start by avoiding logical fallacies, and sensationalistic methods of discussion.

 

[Pengwuino]

forgive my pun pengwuino. I'm not exactly blaming religion. I just think that religion and science are separate. religion should not tell science what to think and vice versa. Btw, is that guy John Polkinghorne?

No. Brandon Murakhami (sp?). He is "kinda religious" according to someone from last semester so I am not sure. This was his 2nd semester teaching so I am actually curious as to how he came to that conclusion in the first place...

Science and religion should be separate but the crap that people like Nebraska come out with pisses me off. Hes practically calling for a holocaust against all religious people. Phobos seems to be pointing out that "the other side" attempts to take out objectionable things from textbooks but i would hope no one goes around religious forums saying "all scientists should be removed and all science destroyed" and using some dumb copy/paste job to end all his paragraphs lol.

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

I personally think that facts can only be ascribed to the empirical. Like it is a fact that an apple drops when let go from a high place. But it is NOT a fact that gravity is the one pulling, but rather gravity is the theory, and a rather successful one to boot.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Teaching biblical creationism in the classroom is just another mechanism of evolution.

Whatever humans do is a part of the evolutionary scheme of things. We can't consider the things we do as separate from the grand machination of nature.

Besides, protest and displays of disgust have never stopped anyone from believing what they believe. Its only until some great event (demonstrating the validity of evolutionary theory) happens to a person that they will begin to grasp what many people on this board already know.

Then there are those who will miss the evolutionary boat altogether. Will it make any difference to them that they missed it? Doubtful. Whatever.

 

[bross7]

Teaching biblical creationism in the classroom is just another mechanism of evolution.

Whatever humans do is a part of the evolutionary scheme of things. We can't consider the things we do as separate from the grand machination of nature.

Besides, protest and displays of disgust have never stopped anyone from believing what they believe. Its only until some great event (demonstrating the validity of evolutionary theory) happens to a person that they will begin to grasp what many people on this board already know.

Then there are those who will miss the evolutionary boat altogether. Will it make any difference to them that they missed it? Doubtful. Whatever.

Perhaps not, but when these same people try to influence youth by proclaiming things like "Evolution doesn't exist" and "Believing in evolution means not believing in God", that is where you have reason to be concerned.

Currently as a University student at the University of Western Ontario, we are going through a semi-related issue in terms of abortion and religion as Dr. Henri Morgentaler is being awarded an honourary degree for his work in pushing for legal abortions.
Catholic parents did things like have their kids wear black arms bands at a track meet (which gave the Catholic board a deal to use the track field at Western for their meet) to protest the honourary degree.

It has forced limitations to be made on attendees at the graduations for fear of public demonstrations disrupting the ceremonies. Those in favour of Morgentaler and in the "pro choice" side chose to have their show of support on the campus held the day prior to the honourary degree being awarded (actually the degree will be presented today June 16th). The "pro life" group are holding their protest on the day of the degree and have promised to be vocal in their dis-taste for the ceremony. At the same time they are saying they don't want have abortion forced on them.

If you want to pretend that evolution doesn't exist and that God just said one day, hmm, I think I'll made the Universe today, all the more power to you. But just as I won't go into a church and scream at the top of my lungs that humans come from monkey's, I expect religious opinion to not be shoved down my throat. I can't recall the last time I had a group of evolutionists come to my door giving my pamplets promoting evolution, but I do recall having people come to my door to tell me that I should be praising Jesus right now.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Perhaps not, but when these same people try to influence youth by proclaiming things like "Evolution doesn't exist" and "Believing in evolution means not believing in God", that is where you have reason to be concerned......

I'm not concerned. People are always trying to shove stuff down everyone else's throat. Its called marketing and campaigning etc. If you want to be concerned be concerned about the fact that some people actually fall for what they're being told to fall for.

I can't recall the last time I had a group of evolutionists come to my door giving my pamplets promoting evolution, but I do recall having people come to my door to tell me that I should be praising Jesus right now.

At least these people at your door don't have AK7s at your head telling you what to believe, like in some nations. Next time get your monkey to answer the door.

 

[Phobos]

If you want to be concerned be concerned about the fact that some people actually fall for what they're being told to fall for.

And do you think including non-science in a science classroom (i.e., presenting it as if it were valid science) will help or hurt the level of critical thinking in the population?

Teaching biblical creationism in the classroom is just another mechanism of evolution. Whatever humans do is a part of the evolutionary scheme of things. We can't consider the things we do as separate from the grand machination of nature.

Shall we leave it to natural selection or artificial selection?

Shall we just open every door to every opinion or should there be some structure to an education?

 

[Andrew Mason]

Shall we just open every door to every opinion or should there be some structure to an education?

In my view, evolution is not a theory. It does not purport to explain how things actually changed. It is simply a principle. Our observations that:

1. incremental genetic change occurs (through various means of exchanging genetic material between organisms)

2. genetic changes that enhance survivability in an environment tend to proliferate (the principle of natural selection)

3. these changes are cumulative (due to retention of genetic information in DNA)

4. these changes in survivability of life forms, in turn, can change the environment,

allow us to conclude as a matter of principle that life forms tend to naturally evolve and develop. How this occurred may be a matter of theory. The fact is, we don't know. It is just a guess. But, however conjectural the evolutionary facts may be, the principle of evolution is incontestible.

AM

 

[Phobos]

In my view, evolution is not a theory. It does not purport to explain how things actually changed.

But the theory of evolution does provide mechanisms to explain the process. E.g.,
Natural selection
Sexual selection
Genetic drift
Mutation
Recombination
Gene Flow

Consider the research that is done into how mutations happen, what types there are, and how they are spread.

Even the 'principles' you mention can be viewed as a theory when you use them to explain the variety of species (linked through common ancestry).

Another part of the theory of evolution is an examination of the history of evolution (outlining ancestry which can include things such as tracking gene flow, the spread of variations, etc. to explain why certain species are to be found in certain regions).

 

[Dr.Yes]

And do you think including non-science in a science classroom (i.e., presenting it as if it were valid science) will help or hurt the level of critical thinking in the population?

Comparitive presentation of all the facts and the pseudofacts quickly helps students decide which theories perform the best. Critical thinking usually happens when all the views of a question are known to the critical thinker. Then the most logical and reasonable explanation can be identified in comparisome with other candidates.

And as I said, the other candidates are normally trying to shove their view down everyone else's throat. You can usually spot the biggest schmuck, its the one trying their damnedest and shouting the loudest.

Shall we leave it to natural selection or artificial selection?

Both are natural choices. Which ever one we choose, nature rules.

Shall we just open every door to every opinion or should there be some structure to an education?

As far as I know a good education includes as many aspects there are of just as many subjects. This includes studying the beliefs that exist today concerning the gamut of subjects available in any institute of learning.

Its the religious schools that, for the most part, allegedly, teach monoptic views of a subject, never spending much time on challenging views of "creation" and history and other subjects.

If you want to see science taught in a similar manner just look at most of the universities in the world. There is very little time spent or tolerance wasted on the alternative approaches to scientific learning. There can be great value in every bit of information, misinformation and formation you lay yours eyes on in this world. But, for the most part, this is ignored. Science plods along in an hermetically sealed plastic baggie with its blinkers on, much like an Omish Clydsdale.

 

[Charles Brough]

One reason for the growing popularity of the Creationist so called "theory" of our origin is not just that religious reaction is underway but also because scientists make the same mistake everyone on this threat has made---that is, you keep talking about "facts" and "truth" and "theory" when you really do not understand the concepts in them. According to you all, evolution is a fact, a truth and a theory, all three! This sort of thinking is easily exploited by the clever evolutionists. I am an atheist and have debated with them. I know how brilliant adversaries they can be. They ask "how can science or evolution be the truth when it is always changing?"

Why is it so hard for science to get used to the idea that there is no such thing as scientific fact or truth? All we are doing with science and all we have ever done with it is improve the accuracy in what we understand about ourselves and our universe.
What we understand now is not 'THE TRUTH" because in a hundred years or less it will be replaced with much more accurate understandings. Scientists actually learned that there was no such thing as "truth" way back in the 1920s and 1930s. Einstein helped with the understanding by promoting the relativelness of knowlege. For decades, scientists actually stopped even using the word "truth". It was realized that there are no absolutes, that we are finite in an infite world and that science has always a more accurate picture of ourselves and our universe than portrayed by all the old religions, but none of us have any unchanging, unchangeble, unimprovable, and hence perfect knowledge about anything.

When we should use this weapon against the religious fanatics, their arguments fail. It undermines totally their position. It keeps them from undermining ours. Evolution is far more accurate than the concept that life was "created out of nothing!" Isn't that enough for us? Do we also have to believe it is the final, unchanging, perfect, unimprovable "TRUTH" as well? When we see science and everything realistically this way, we stop all the nonsense about "finding the Truth" and come to realize that we will never achieve "final truth" and, hence, we will always need science! That makes science as important as it really is.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

 

[Dr.Yes]

growing popularity of the Creationist "theory" of our origin

Please provide evidence of the growing popularity of creationism.

When you compare the number of people who tote the creationist line today to the number (per capita) from just 100 years ago you'll find that the popularity of the "¡ka bang! you're a human" theory has been reduced significantly.

 

[Phobos]

Comparitive presentation of all the facts and the pseudofacts quickly helps students decide which theories perform the best. Critical thinking usually happens when all the views of a question are known to the critical thinker. Then the most logical and reasonable explanation can be identified in comparisome with other candidates.

Sounds good..and that is often the position presented by creationists lately ("teach the controversy" or "let students decide for themselves") as it appeals to a sense of fair play. However, what is being proposed is teaching non-science in a science classroom or having opinion or non-mainstream views by-pass the scientific process (experimentation, peer review, etc.)* and be directly injected into the educational process (presented as what would seem to be a scientific view to the new students).

* An unfair proposal, given that the theory of evolution goes through that process.

Both are natural choices. Which ever one we choose, nature rules.

I agree that 'artificial' selection is part of natural selection. I just meant to make the distinction that we, as a society, can either let the chips fall where they may, or we can work toward a goal.

As far as I know a good education includes as many aspects there are of just as many subjects. This includes studying the beliefs that exist today concerning the gamut of subjects available in any institute of learning.

Its the religious schools that, for the most part, allegedly, teach monoptic views of a subject, never spending much time on challenging views of "creation" and history and other subjects.

If you want to see science taught in a similar manner just look at most of the universities in the world. There is very little time spent or tolerance wasted on the alternative approaches to scientific learning. There can be great value in every bit of information, misinformation and formation you lay yours eyes on in this world. But, for the most part, this is ignored.

I agree that studying alternative views can be educational (e.g., learning how to think critically, as you mentioned), but I think there's a time & a place for it (like, say, a specific course in critical thinking). There are many opinions/ideas/theories out there and it would be impractical to teach them all. I think it is the responsibility of schools to teach the best information each subject has to offer. The bar should be set high.

Science plods along in an hermetically sealed plastic baggie with its blinkers on, much like an Omish Clydsdale

I think we will just have to disagree on that image. Have you seen what's been going on over the past 100 years alone?
Science is dynamic, but it's screening of ideas is rigorous and methodical.

 

[Phobos]

...---that is, you keep talking about "facts" and "truth" and "theory" when you really do not understand the concepts in them. According to you all, evolution is a fact, a truth and a theory, all three! ...

I don't think people here are saying Science = Absolute Truth.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Sounds good..and that is often the position presented by creationists lately ("teach the controversy" or "let students decide for themselves") as it appeals to a sense of fair play. However, what is being proposed is teaching non-science in a science classroom or having opinion or non-mainstream views by-pass the scientific process (experimentation, peer review, etc.)* and be directly injected into the educational process (presented as what would seem to be a scientific view to the new students).

* An unfair proposal, given that the theory of evolution goes through that process.



I agree that 'artificial' selection is part of natural selection. I just meant to make the distinction that we, as a society, can either let the chips fall where they may, or we can work toward a goal.



I agree that studying alternative views can be educational (e.g., learning how to think critically, as you mentioned), but I think there's a time & a place for it (like, say, a specific course in critical thinking). There are many opinions/ideas/theories out there and it would be impractical to teach them all. I think it is the responsibility of schools to teach the best information each subject has to offer. The bar should be set high.



I think we will just have to disagree on that image. Have you seen what's been going on over the past 100 years alone?
Science is dynamic, but it's screening of ideas is rigorous and methodical.

Of course I forgot, and you are right to say that disciplines require discipline and won't be fully explored with a mish mash of ideas being mixed into the train of thought.

And I capitulate to the idea of a separate and rigorous course in critical thinking. That would keep interuptions to a minimum in classes of other disciplines.

Last hundred years of science? Not bad, in a primitive way. I still say you'd see leaps beyond bounds if a bit more attention was paid to those theories that are deemed "whacked-out" but remain uninvestigated or privately shelved. Some of these ideas are the kinds innovations that will generate huge advances in all manner of human endevour.

These days, as was true 100 years ago and more, science is overtly influenced by private interests and capital gain, but, what else is new? So is basket ball, hockey, animal husbandry and so on!

edit) sorry, totally off topic.

I'm sorry to hear about the demolition of the teachings of Charles Darwin and his successors... in your area. Perhaps its just a little phase the area's going through. Maybe its the powers that be and no one else really believes all the apple and snake, mystical mumbo jumbo. However, myths and ancient stories etc... hold a lot of information about the times they reflect and can often point to the advances I've already mentioned. That is the way evolution works... it folds over, into and onto itself, recycling and composting then reusing the stuff that applies to the moment. Thanks

 

[Phobos]

Thanks Dr. Yes. Good food for thought.

 

[Icebreaker]

Perhaps creationism is exploiting science's willingness of saying, 'I don't know yet!'

Let me just quote something I read a while ago:

Subject: you've changed my life. thanks, I think.
Date: 31 March 2004
Message-ID: 4b9cfdb7.0403311145.2a446dc3@posting.google.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have had a most extraordinary last two weeks and I owe much of it to this group, or more accurately, the talkorigins.org website and I'm writing to say thanks.

I have been raised my whole life as a Jehovah's Witness and (therefore) an old-Earth creationist. I'll be the first to admit that I've not always been the world's best JW, but I had always felt that when I was being good I was at least standing on relatively firm ground. My upbringing and books like "Life - How Did it Get Here, By Evolution or Creation?" taught me the complete absurdity and hopelessness of the evolutionist, secular humanist view of how we got here. The arguments presented seemed to make sense and I was satisfied that my questions were being answered honestly and meaningfully. It's so strange then what has happened over the last few weeks.

It started simply enough. My wife and I were discussing the Flood and the promised Paradise Earth and we wound up postulating some rather difficult questions for ourselves. Questions like, "If all the animals were originally herbivores (as the Bible says they were before the flood and would again be in the future), wouldn't that have disastrous environmental consequences?" "Wouldn't one-celled life and insects continue to have a role to play in the food chain? If so, wouldn't at least some of it be carnivorous or parasitic?" Once I started thinking of questions I couldn't stop (and more importantly, I couldn't think of any rational answers). A few days later some friends came over and we all got to talking about the Ark and the Flood and pondering some of the same questions. Now, these friends are JW's and I have no reason to believe they have abandoned "The Truth" (as it's referred to in the organization) but one of them sent me a link to a document on TalkOrigins about the flood a few days later saying that he thought it was interesting. Interesting didn't even begin to describe it. I was blown away.

Now, I don't think I'm a stupid person. I am a 30-year-old professional software developer with a 142 IQ. I read a lot. I consider myself educated, open-minded and capable of recognizing fact versus fiction and yet there I found myself realizing for the very first time that I had been blindly accepting as a fact something that was completely impossible. Perhaps some sort of flood happened in pre-history, but a global flood, the Biblical flood of Noah as described by Jehovah's Witnesses, could not have happened the way they say. It was so obvious when all the issues were laid out in one document and yet I had never noticed it before. For once, I felt stupid. I felt like I had been believing in Santa Claus (JW's don't do the Christmas thing, BTW, so it's the closest I've ever come TO believing in Santa Claus). I could have left it at that, but I didn't. If the "logic" given to me to explain the flood was wrong, I had to know what else was wrong too. Oh boy.

I went back to the beginning. In Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic prophecy. Everything Jehovah's Witness teach about why we are here, the purpose of life, the reason Jesus came to Earth, the hope for the future... all of it, is rooted in the Garden of Eden, the Genesis account. I decided to re-examine, with an actual open mind, the question of Creation vs. Evolution (as I pictured it, rather naively). Could the chronology of the Bible, the location of Eden, the Genesis creation account, any of it, be reconciled with science? Did any of it, in fact, happen?

Now, chronology is vitally important to Jehovah's Witnesses. It's how they calculate the "end times" and why they are sure we are living in them. If the entire basis for all Bible chronology was based on a fictional story, everything started to go out the window. It all broke down. I dug out my "Creation" book and dug in and what I discovered made me sick to my stomach. The last time I read it I was 15 and it was incredibly convincing. This time I did the actual research. I looked up the references. I checked the quotations and examined the lines of reasoning and found... pseudo-science. Fallacies. Misquotes. Deliberately misleading re-writes of quotes. Argument through incredulity. Appeals to authority. Ignorance of evidence. Selective presentation of facts. Outdated information. This was worse than determining that the flood story was impossible. This was evidence that the religion I have been raised in was actually resorting to outright deception and taking quotes out of context and presenting as science something that is really just propaganda... and that I'd fallen for it.

See, JW's pay a lot of lip-service to examining the scriptures, researching your faith, PROVING that it's THE TRUTH, keeping an open-mind. At the same time (and I'm not making this up) they have a song that has the following words:

"We must act together as one
independance wisely we shun
harmony and one-ness of mind
bring peace of rarest kind"


I never felt right singing those words. Regardless, I always believed that my religious beliefs would stand up to scrutiny. I took comfort in that. I thought I HAD scrutinized them. That is what we are supposed to do. This is supposed to be a religion based on reasons for faith. To see that book for what it really was... that hurt.

Anyhow, after being basically crushed over the empty shell that is the Creation book I decided to take a serious look at evolution for the first time in my life outside of the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Oh. My. God. I never knew. I just never knew. I have spent the last week absorbing everything I can. I have downloaded the entire TalkOrigins.org website onto my laptop to read offline. I stayed up all night watching the Discovery Science channel the night before last because of a program on hominid evolution and I just kept watching every show afterwards. I bought The Blind Watchmaker and I'm almost done reading it. I have researched radioactive dating methods, transitional fossils, creationist arguments, abiogenesis theories and lots more and over and over and over again I have found a mountain of evidence, a mountain of evidence I had been informed didn't exist. I have found intelligent people who think for themselves, who (yes) argue and change positions and interpret things differently but who are firmly grounded in reality. The actual study of the actual world as it is, not the study of how a book says it should be and an obsession with trying to make the world appear to fit that model.

I don't know what this means for me. I know this... I am now, and on some level have always been, a secular humanist. I am suddenly comfortable in my own skin, like my mind is clear for the first time. I no longer know what role, if any, the concept of God plays in my life. It's certainly not the role that was there two weeks ago. Now that I actually understand the theory of evolution to some extent I realize it's not just a bunch of wishful-thinking atheists working on some quack theory and calling it a fact. I have developed a whole new awe and appreciation for the world I see around me, like I'm really seeing it for the first time. The geese outside my office looked like little dinosaurs to me and I got the chills. I'm 30 years old, my entire family, my wife and all my friends are Jehovah's Witnesses. If they knew for even a minute that I've conclusively disproved (for myself) all the fundamental teachings that underlay their (and my former) theology, that I had come to realize the fact of evolution (still hard for me to type that sentence...) and rejected the chronology of the Bible as impossible... they would probably never speak to me again. I don't like the position I'm in now. I'm scared. I have no idea what to do. I have no idea how to proceed. I feel like I just opened my eyes for the first time and I don't know what the next step is.

I do, however, want to thank all you long-suffering rational folks out in Talk.Origins land. You've put together a resource that has radically changed my life in the blink of an eye and I am grateful.

lodger

 

[O Great One]

This guy has an IQ of 142 and he falls for the fairy tale of evolution?
It's not too difficult to prove that evolution is not true. However, it is a million times harder to get anyone to admit this. If he has overwhelming evidence for the 'fact' of evolution, then why not present it? I sure would like to see it.

 

[bross7]

This guy has an IQ of 142 and he falls for the fairy tale of evolution?
It's not too difficult to prove that evolution is not true. However, it is a million times harder to get anyone to admit this. If he has overwhelming evidence for the 'fact' of evolution, then why not present it? I sure would like to see it.

Huh? Not difficult to prove evolution isn't true?

Perhaps you can share how this is the case with me.

 

[Rev Prez]

And do you think including non-science in a science classroom (i.e., presenting it as if it were valid science) will help or hurt the level of critical thinking in the population?

I can't locate any research correlating belief in creationism with academic performance (assuming academic performance is positively correlated with critical thought), but the literature relating religiosity in general to achievement in school suggests more religious students perform better on average than their non-religious peers [http://www.webster.edu/~hulsizer/research/Adams.pdf ]. So I'll have to say the "jury is still out" as to whether including "non-science in a science class...will help or hurt the level of critical thinking in a population."

Shall we just open every door to every opinion or should there be some structure to an education?

I don't think any of the parties involved are arguing for structureless education or rejecting standardization.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

In my view, evolution is not a theory.

What you're describing is history, not theory. Scientific theory promises a model of processes that is consistent to some degree of accuracy with past (explanatory) and future (predictive) observation and experiment. A history would amount to recording and perhaps indexing observations themselves. We can use scientific models to bound statements about unobserved events, and these do rise to the level of fact. Of course, you can craft a theodicy--as the more reasonable creationists do--that rejects factual statements on the unmeasured inconsistent with their divinely revealed truth.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

I don't think people here are saying Science = Absolute Truth.

But people here are advocating that only science be taught in public school science classes. That in turn means that students are exposed only to scientific materialism, something Christian creationists or not--may find offensive.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Science isn't forced on persons because one ignores science at their own peril.

We can say the same thing about religion and end up at very similar nonsensical points of view. The sociology and of science education at the university is as interesting in its development of social norms as it is in religious communities.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

for starters, check into...
Answers in Genesis
Creation Research Institute
Creation Science Evangelism
Creation Science Research Center
Discovery Institute
Institute for Creation Research

I don't think Pen was looking for a list of creationist organizations, but specifically a list of groups that believe that rocket ships should be built based on nothing but Scripture.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Please provide evidence of the growing popularity of creationism.

When you compare the number of people who tote the creationist line today to the number (per capita) from just 100 years ago you'll find that the popularity of the "¡ka bang! you're a human" theory has been reduced significantly.

We don't have the numbers from a century ago. What we do have, for the general population, is data going back twenty years showing some pretty static numbers and reason to believe that the expanded class of the college educated is responsible for any decrease over the past century. [1],[2]

Rev Prez

 

[Phobos]

I don't think Pen was looking for a list of creationist organizations, but specifically a list of groups that believe that rocket ships should be built based on nothing but Scripture.

His quote was..

According to people on this board and on this thread specifically, it seems like there's a portion of our country that believes rocket ships must be built based off blueprints in the bible and that we are demanding that all professors teach that evolution is stupid.

From the overall conversation, it was my impression that Pen was not familiar with the extent of the creation-evolution debate. I did not take the "rocket ship blueprint" bit literally. Although you will see from O Great One's recent post that there are people who want schools to teach that evolution is stupid (or "a fairy tale").