Over 800 scientists in Texas have signed a statement to “encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to ‘strengths and weaknesses’” of evolution – references, they say, that politicians “have used to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses.”
"Texas public schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century, not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a sound science education," said David Hillis, a professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin, according to The Associated Press.
Hills is one of the state’s more than 400 science faculty members who have signed the “Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools” statement, which also includes more than 430 signatures from other Texas scientists.
“We simply believe that students deserve the best science education in their Texas classrooms,” explains the 21st Century Science Coalition, which is spearheading the signature campaign.
At the heart of the matter are the current standards for the state's science curriculum, under which students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."
Some of the Texas Board of Education’s committee members have asked the board to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase as the board looked to update state science standards this summer.
Among those requesting the board to drop the phrase is Kevin Fisher, a committee member who told the NY Times that questions left unanswered by evolution should not be regarded as its weaknesses.
Other critics include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past and is currently spearheading the “Stand Up for Science” campaign.
“It’s time for state board members to listen to classroom teachers and true experts instead of promoting their own personal agendas,” expressed TFN president Kathy Miller in a statement. “Our students can’t succeed with a 19th-century science education in their 21st-century classrooms. We applaud the science work groups for recognizing that fact.”
While there has been strong opposition against the standards’ current language, several board members have appeared to favor it, saying it maintains a balanced debate on evolution.
"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told The Houston Chronicle earlier this summer. "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
Bradley also dismissed concerns by critics over the board's intention to sneak religion into the classroom.
"The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy."
Barbara Cargill, the vice chair of the board's Committee on Instruction, said giving students the freedom to discuss both sides of evolution will ensure them a "well-rounded education."
"It prompts them to be critical thinkers, and it also helps them to respect the opinions of other students even if they disagree," she told the Chronicle.
Meanwhile, Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, has rejected allegations that the group is using the "strength and weaknesses" rhetoric as a new strategy in pushing intelligent design in schools following the 2005 Dover case – when intelligent design was barred from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. Continue >>
RSS
How in the world can seemingly bright people become so invested in this issue? Amazing.....
Go spend more time with the people who love you - and whom you love. This argument is a waste of valuable energy.
ozarkprof wrote "Intelligent design is not a weakness of the evolutionary theory of origins, it is a competitor to that theory."
Invoking intelligent design equals invoking magic. Are you sure you want to say that magic is a valid alternative to science? Do you really think there are any competent scientists in the world who actually take intelligent design magic seriously?
Magic is for children and even children know it isn't real.
New thread of comments on this topic here: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081008/scientist-coalition-accused-of-suppressing-evidence-against-darwinism.htm
igh, "agentorangex, there is no evidence for evolution. You believe it to be so."
Once again the communication breaks down....I earlier mentioned that if you're going to refute the theory you should at least make an attempt to refute the evidence. Do you even bother to do this? Nope. You instead carry on with the same illogical claim of it not having any evidence. Typical creationist tosh, pathetic. Name that sound Igh, 'Ppfffffffftttt', yes, that's you're argument deflating, again.
The common claim that evolution "violates" the Second Law of Thermodynamics (sometimes phrased that "information in X cannot increase" or "information cannot be added") relies on a misunderstanding. The 2nd Law's restriction of nonincreasing order only applies to a single, isolated closed system. If you have two or more sub-systems connected by mass-energy flows (such as a glass of water and a bucket of frozen CO2), it is possible for one system to increase in order (EG: the water, crystalizing to ice) as long as the order decreases at least as much in the connected sub-system (EG: the CO2 sublimating), resulting in a combined system with nondecreasing entropy.
Furthermore, it has been shown that once you use the form of the equations to address such mass energy flows, the Second Law of Thermodynamics mathematically implies the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection will result. For full details, see "Natural selection for least action", By Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178)
Science refers to the process of gathering evidence, forming conjectures about the evidence, developing a formal hypothesis which indicates how the current evidence may be described under the conjecture, competitive testing of all candidate hypotheses under a formal criterion for probable correctness, plus the body of hypotheses testing best thereby and which thereafter are referred to as "Theories".
In the most formal sense, the criterion used for this is a more exacting expression of Occam's Razor, which has been proven in the absolute mathematical sense in the paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity" (Vitanyi & Li). This shows that the most "concise" hypothesis is the one most likely to correctly describe the character of future data. Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory (which serve as the modern foundation for all mathematics) are self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that Reality links to Evidence.
Note that the root of the word "prove" is from the Latin probare, "to test". Thus, hypotheses that become theories may be said to have been Proven in the sense that Science uses the word. This is distinct from the mathematical sense, in that the usual use of "proof" in mathematics indicates a rigorous derivation from axioms; however, the sense that science uses is similar to the sense that a person might seek to "prove" that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
It follows, therefore, that "strengths and weaknesses" or reference to particular arguments being strong and weak can only be made in terms of how one hypothesis compares relative to another. The default reference comparison is the "null hypothesis", which mathematically corresponds to simply noting there are data, and making no attempt to relate them. In the case of evolutionary biology, there are a number of competing variations which have evolved from Darwin's original concept. However, neither "creationism" nor "intelligent design" provide more than marginal improvement over the null, and are no-where near the conciseness of the Modern Evolutionary Genetic Synthesis. Similarly, discussion of "holes" and "missing transitional forms" are also misleading, since science is inherently a process for making inference from a bounded set of data to the characteristics of data we yet lack. Determining what is most probably in a hole in Evidence is fundamentally what Science is for.
Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates are thus, at best, supporters of a conjecture with roots established in religion, who do not test under the Minimum Description Length Induction criterion, and who do not gather evidence directly from reality. As such, whatever it may be that they are doing, it is not science, and does not belong in high school Science classrooms.
agentorangex, there is no evidence for evolution. You believe it to be so.
All there is was made by God in the six days of Creation. All your science and evidence is corrupted. Corrupted by mans hatred for God.
Psalm 37:16 "A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.
Psa 37:17 For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the LORD upholdeth the righteous.
Psa 37:18 The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever."
agento,
Thanx much for your feed back on the book, I look forward to reading it .........
Igh, you're classic, you can't even begin to respond to any of the evidence I laid out earlier, the only thing you can offer is 'evolution has no evidence' as if such a decry by fiat was ever logical. Pffffttttttttt, you hear that? That's you're argument deflating in face of evidence.
"agentorangex there is no evidence for evolution"
Riiiiiight. Seriously, what would suffice as evidence for you that evolution is well supported? What should we find if evolutionary theory is true?
agentorangex there is no evidence for evolution. You believe it to be so.
All there is was made by God in the six days of Creation. All you science and evidence is corrupted. Corrupted by mans hatred for God.
"Have you read it? "
Yes, it's a decent read, I would advise it for anyone interested or new to evolution as it's not overly technical yet still delivers with examples of how evolution works and it can be understood by reviewing the fossil record and living animals. But for one who is more familiar with evolution, it doesn't offer as many examples of direct and indirect evidence, and this is why I specified Prothero's book as it outlines many lines of evidence specifically from the fossil record and does such a thorough explanation in many respects that I challenge any doubter to read it and consider that evolution has no evidence. I am currently reading 'The making of the Fittest' by Sean Carrol, who is a very well respected researcher at HHMI and works directly with embryonic development (evo-devo) and genetics and uses his works and others for genetic evidence. It's not too shabby too.
thanx agent for your very thorough and interesting response on Tiktallik. I have been wanting to learn more about the science of evolution but just havent had the time. My only biology training was freshman biology long ago in HS and biochemistry in college, so its hard for me to understand it beyond general concepts. Thanks for recommending Donald Prothero's book, I will look into it. I like succinct, not enough time for much else. A book I have ordered is "Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion-Year History of the Human Body " by Neil Shubin from the Universtiy of Chicago, the discoverer of Tiltaalik. Have you read it?
believer, the petition is based on “Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schoolsâ€Â.
Responsible curriculum I think being the key here referring to how they (the teachers) shouldn't be allowed to teach just evolution and single it out and teach it in a 'strengths and weaknesses' fashion, they should teach it as other sciences are taught. Straight forward using evidence. I don't really think this is against kids asking questions, we want them to think critically, but we want them to think so in response to evidence, not to what the theory can't yet explain.
http://www.texasscientists.org/sign.html
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/ut_professors_sign_initiative_to_promote_teaching_of_evolution
agent, I'm not insisting that the strengths and weaknesses be taught, but that if a student has a legitmate question with regards to either the strengths or weaknesses of evolution they should be allowed to ask their question and if I am interpreting this resolution correctly they will not be allowed to. I believe my view is more of a philosophical view as opposed to an academic view, but that's where I'm coming from on this issue.
believer, seriously think about what you're asking for here, if they are REALLY going to teach the strengths of evolutionary theory they had better discuss such evidence like the hominid fossils, ERV's, Human Chromosome 2 fusion, and all other related genetic and fossil evidence for hominid evolution. And this would just be on hominid evolution.....do you really want the kids learning this?
"I just don't understand why not. "
How about lack of time or resources? There are only so many hours in a given school year, and those should be dedicated to teaching supportive evidence, not watered down 'you jump to your own concussions' evidence. This would be like teaching both sides won the Civil War and then foolishly leavening it up to the kids to decide. If puts up a facade, as if both sides for and against were equally supported when they're not. Science is about teaching what we know or can support consistently based on evidence, not teaching what we don't know. Teaching what we don't know wouldn't be much of a class, and what on Earth would be the point, how would you even test for it? All the answers would be 'It can't yet' or 'Don't know yet'. How pathetic, it's not a test of knowledge, it's a test of ignorance.
Our obligation should be on teaching what is best supported, and trying to compare the strengths and weaknesses of a theory in a grade school class is simply not the place, especially given the constraints.
"why aren't they allowed if they feel led to, to question those issues that deal with the strengths and weaknesses they do understand?"
I think they would be able to question it or parts of it, but again these grade school kids would if anything be fed such questions, they wouldn't be of their own research. The question I think is that can teachers teach evolution according to its strengths and weaknesses, which is unheard of for any science classes, so why single evolution out? Why not gravity, atomic theory, chemistry, physics? I think we all know why...
agent, there were various things I was led to believe as a young student that later I found were either not true or only partially true, but while I was in school I was not allowed to question those issues. But it sounds to me like this resolution does say that students are not allowed to question the strengths or weaknesses of evolution and I just don't understand why not. And while I believe they don't have the knowledge to question some of the more complex findings of evolution, why aren't they allowed if they feel led to, to question those issues that deal with the strengths and weaknesses they do understand?
igh,
"The problem isnt science nor the evidence of how all things work. Christians welcome this with insight and wisdom."
Really, care to address the evidence for evolution instead of citing biblical passages for a change?
"The Problem is when scientists refuse to accept any credible explanation of how all of it came about. That is the problem, not science, not evidence.There are two world views at work here, one says: NO GOD."
No IGH, evolution doesn't attempt to explain 'how it all came about', it only attempts to explain 'how life diversifies'. Also, in science we use the scientific method, which doesn't permit the use of supernaturalism/magic/god dun it,etc. as explanations for how the natural world works. Show me a single scientific discovery which included the use of magic or supernaturalism and resulted in actual knowledge. The fruits of science are all around us b/c its useful and gets results, unlike appealing to magic.
1Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."
"Is Eusthenopteron related to Tiktaalik?'
This would be an excellent question, even for a 4th or 8th grader....It's hard to know how direct they are, fossils and even those which display traits of intermediates might not be the direct ancestors or linking descendants as per how rare fossilization and their preservation is. One must also acknowledge how often extinctions occur and how this effectively removes any possible descendants from this twig. Though, we should still expect to find specimens which bridges these gaps of type A and type M respectively had such evolution and descent occurred. Anyone familiar with how speciation occurs and how any of the left or right turns from a speciation leads in a given trajectory and close relatives will evolve on quite similar trajectories with still traits for a relatively short geological duration. So it's hard to know if they are direct or not as some intermediates exist between them and any right or left turn on the branching of life makes it no longer a 'direct', but none the less still living in parallel with the direct descendant. You follow? In summary, Tiktaalik might not be directly ancestral from the species of Eusthenopteron , but Tiktaalik would certainly be very closely related to something very much like Eusthenopteron , if not Eusthenopteron itself.
Tiktaalik is, if anything, more likely an evolutionary cousin to those direct ancestors which lived and evolved in parallel with growing the traits needed for terrestrial life, it however is what we should expect if such transitions occurred. The theory predicts we should find species just like it at this geological time relative to the species before and after, and as predicted the theory is supported by such specimens.
If you want a decent read on it, I recommend 'Evolution what the fossils say and why it matters' -Donald Prothero, he lays out the objective fossil evidence regarding evolution in very succinct manner.
agent, "..... the species the ampibians evolved from were lobe finned fish like Eusthenopteron....."
Question : My understanding of these things is very limited, but was reading a bit about Tiktaalik. I understand it to be a transitional form from fish to amphibians. Is Eusthenopteron related to Tiktaalik?
believer, I think they should be allowed to ask questions. However, that is different than the teacher being forced to teach the 'strengths and weaknesses' of the theory though. This kind of discussion would give the allusion as if the evidence for is equal to the evidence against, which it isn't, and thus wrong.
"not told the whole truth."
I don't follow, not told the truth for what? Consider the time, consider the current knowledge, consider all they could have taught provided the time, perhaps it wasn't all that bad?
agent, I guess I disagree based on my own experiences in a religious school growing up where to question a teacher could almost be considered heresy and at the age of 19 I came to realize I was basically lied to or not told the whole truth. I do see your point to a point but I will always have a problem when I hear students are being denied the right to ask the tough questions on an issue.
believer, what do we as society or the students get by telling them at the moment we aren't sure about Gradualism or Punctuated Equilibrium? The vast majority wont be even aware of its contention, nor how either model still supports evolutionary theory regardless. If we are talking about letting them bring this up, then what is the point...who learns as a result of this? The only way to establish which model is best supported is based on supportive evidence, not negative evidence.
believer, for the most part I took the teachers words only so far, but in early grades I knew my place and I understood I was still a learner (especially in science, biology and evolution) and had no justification for openly challenging the hard work of PhD.s I'd rather remain quite than open my mouth and look a fool.
You're presuming that any 4th grader would understand science, biology and evolution, etc. to the extent required to openly critique it, and virtually all don't, and this doesn't change much by the time their in 8th grade. In public schools they hardly teach anything about genetics, it's only biology basics, and at this level there is really nothing to challenge. It's in the best interest of the students for them not to be overtly disruptive to the learning of others, and this included asking questions which we don't have answers for as of yet. They are good questions, but they don't help with instruction of the material or supportive evidence, it's a quasi move to water it down, or to make it appear as if the theory is utterly bankrupt and hollow, which it certainly is not.
agent, but how are 4th graders going to get that knowledge if they are not allowed to ask questions that may challenge either the strengths or weaknesses of an issue. My gut hunch is you were a thorn in many a teachers side when you were in grade school because you were the very kid asking those tough questions and I bet you were the better student as a result and you gave them more homework to do then they gave you?
"Bacteria (penicillin resistance)NO NEW INFORMATION ADDED!!!!"
Yeah, okay, sorry but bold caps don't sell your point any better. Look, in a population of bacteria when they are exposed to a new antibiotic a small % will survive (if they're not eradicated outright) and this surviving population will have the genes responsible for its immunity/survival. Then, this population of bacteria can then inject its genes via a process known as HGT in which they transfer their genetic information to other populations of bacteria so they too will be able to
survive this particular antibiotic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
More? In the 1970's Japanese researchers found out that bacteria was thriving on Nylon, an entirely sythetic substance that didn't exist till the 1930's. So how did the bacteria become able to digest it? If you said 'mutations' and 'natural selection', then you're right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria
"Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few."
Well of course it does, though 'bacteria' aren't what we humans evolved from as microbes, we evolved off the proto-eukaroyitc and later eukaroytic branch, and you're describing something that took on the order of magnitude of nearly 4 billion years.
"However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for normal functioning."
It might alter it, but as noted earlier by CCR5 and others, an alteration can be beneficial provided the environment. (No HIV, CCR5 has relatively no fitness advantage - with HIV it's a HUGE advantage, especially if we were talking prior to medicine and technology as this mutation would be your only shot of living! If the alteration (mutation) results in even a marginal .01% increase in survivability, it will result in greater relative fitness and spread as natural selection weeds out those less favorable, both of the species and those harm full mutations which don't confer an advantage. This is what Darwin meant by NS selecting away those traits which are 'injurious' as over time those who have such wont be able to reproduce on par with their rivals.
"Again, where did it all come from?"
For evolutionary theory it doesn't really matter, evolution explains the diversity of life, not how it originated.
"All dog breeds are descended from ONLY ONE DOG KIND."
Actually all dogs are descendants from a more primitive type of wolf (not a dog yet) which later diversified to all the modern breeds of dogs.
"A poodle is a mutation of an original dog kind over time"
Hmmmmmm, so you're saying this poodle is a the result of biological changes over time from the ancestral dog, yep, that would be the evolution. Evolution = biological changes over time.
"Genetics is actually the enemy of evolution and has been since the beginning."
Riiiight, the same genetics which only earlier helped to evolve poodles from this original dog, right? =)
"Transitional forms like the Coelacanth you mean?"
Actually, I would reference others, like these:
Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Eliginerpeton, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpoton, Greererpteton, Tulerpeton
"Genetics is actually the enemy of evolution and has been since the beginning. If I were you I'd retract this one."
Riiiight. Um, can you elaborate please? I would like to know how genetics doesn't favor evolution, thanks.
"How about the fish you darwinsits have claimed for years to have evolved from - the Coelacanth? Whoops! We found them alive and well today."
And here you demonstrate what others suspected. A new species coming from an existing one need not cause the ancestral species to go extinct, so there is no requirement saying the Coelacanth shouldn't be around. More over, the species the ampibians evolved from were lobe finned fish like Eusthenopteron and not Coelacanth. (ooops).
tpique1, You want evidence? Here, hominid fossils, enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
More you want? ERV's and Human chromosome 2 fusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
beliver,
'it appears however that if this resolution is approved those 4th graders won't be allowed to question or challenge'
Think about this, should or do 4th graders really have the level of understanding in ANYTHING (let alone evolution or science in general) in order to legitamentally critique or question it? No, not even close, not even by a long shot. They lack so much of the basic understanding that they can't even begin to address any of the details at any length, let alone critiqe them.
tpi, very good, you turned in a paper with some cut and paste stuff.
DO you even know what evolutionary science is and is not? I dont think so, might want to look it up ..
For our argument it would mean: The beginning of life. However, the first cause argument suggests that there had to be a beginning and if there is a beginning then there is a Creator outside of the universe to bring it into being.
Yes, yes, yes...but how far back are you talking about and for what situation, goodness me, its so difficult to get a straight answer around here sometimes....
Cheers
Steve
steveh20,
It amazes me how evolutionists think in terms of "billions of years" and claim lightning struck "crystals" (ala Stanley Miller or Michael Reus) and somehow spontaneously gave way to life (CRYSTALS FOLKS!!!) Yet thinking in terms of eternity as in an eternal God (outside of time and space) somehow escapes your reasoning.
First cause..... How far back are you thinking?
Fossil record (transition forms)
Transitional forms like the Coelacanth you mean?
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_08.html
Genetic mapping (gene drift/mutations).
Genetics is actually the enemy of evolution and has been since the beginning. If I were you I'd retract this one.
Breeding of plants and animals (plant hybreds-modern agriculture, dog breeds).
All dog breeds are descended from ONLY ONE DOG KIND. A poodle is a mutation of an original dog kind over time. It is still a dog (that's argumentative of course :)).
Bacteria (penicillin resistance)
An antibiotic kills a bacterial cell by simply disrupting a critical function. This is achieved in the cell in much the same way that a saboteur can cause a massive jetliner to crash by simply cutting the hydraulic lines. NO NEW INFORMATION ADDED!!!!The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.
Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into manâ€â€functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.
Virus adaptation (AIDS).
The issue is notâ€â€never has beenâ€â€the existence of change, but whether the changes that we observe in living things have anything to do with the type of change that would be needed to turn microbes into microbiologists. I.e., for this to work, the changes must increase the information content.
It is true that there are people who have mutations with beneficial outcomes. For example, individuals with the CCR5 mutation who are exposed to HIV are not likely to develop an infection and subsequently AIDS. Individuals who develop cancer but have certain mutations can be effectively treated with a certain class of cancer drugs. However, there may be currently unknown detrimental effects from these mutations as well. or example, studies have shown that people with the CCR5 mutation may be at a higher risk of developing West Nile Virus illness and hepatitis C.
Fruit flies (evolutionary changes in the lab).
Mutations can be beneficial but they are still mutations. It is true that the majority of mutations fall into the categories of either nearly neutral or harmful. Silent (neutral) mutations alter the DNA sequence but do not alter the amino acids encoded by the DNA sequence. Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for normal functioning.
Again, where did it all come from? Even if I grant you evolution, it is still a process AFTER the fact. You still haven't dealt with the first cause.
here you go tpi, study up a bit on the list below, then come back and we can talk:
Some Evidence for Evolution:
Fossil record (transition forms).
Genetic mapping (gene drift/mutations).
Breeding of plants and animals (plant hybreds-modern agriculture, dog breeds).
Bacteria (penicillin resistance)
Virus adaptation (AIDS).
Fruit flies (evolutionary changes in the lab).
Never EVER trust an (d)evolutionist folks nor the fantasy artists they hire to illustrate their children's stories.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_08.html
P.S. The science of evolution???? Where is your evidence??? Give me something! Anything! I dare you to give me something anything beyond empty assumption. You CANNOT PROVE evolution!
Operations science:
Based on: the senses (assuming they are reliable)
Uses: experiments
Deals with: the present
Results in: repeatable conclusions, technology
Origins science
Based on: assumptions about the past
Uses: extrapolation
Deals with: the past
Results in: unrepeatable stories about the past
scitsonga,
I'm not a blind homer. Your beloved academia is rife with priests and priestesses of (d)evolution. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence for evolution. It is a dogma. A belief system. Christians hold to a belief system but we're actually honest. We admit it. Evolutionists hide behind strong arm tactics like the one in the article. What are they deathly afraid of? I'll tell you what every naturalist is deathly afraid of: TRUTH. That is why atheists HAVE TO legislate ideas. Because they can't sustain the ones they have.
They aren't legislating for moral reason, it's simply because they KNOW that if they lose their "holy grail" they will in effect lose the entire war, and they know people aren't buying their "Goo to you through the zoo" tripe anymore.
Life began from nothing on the backs of crystals??? Are you kidding me? And you're calling the Ten Commandments fantastic??
As for Moses' tablets, are you going to go on record with the other skeptics who have come before you and claim that the tablets don't exist? Your friends were wrong about Herod, (they said he never existed either) untl they found his tomb. How about the fish you darwinsits have claimed for years to have evolved from - the Coelacanth? Whoops! We found them alive and well today. That little discovery was quietly swept under the rug so that the darwinian faithful would not see the old man with the levers sitting behind the curtain so to speak. In time we may find the tablets, but in time you will never prove (d)evolution. You will only do like the Mormons, change the story year after year keeping the fantasy of "the great and powerful OZ" alive.
tpi "there's not a single shred of evidence to back up its[mormonism] claims.
yes, might agree on his, the golden tablets and all. Similar to moses and the stone tablets story..........not a single shred of evidence........
tpi "....there's not a single shred of evidence to back up its [evolution] claims".
Wow, perhaps you are more knowledgable than the thousands of scientist that see the evidence of evolution everyday........LOL. Do you even have the slightest clue as to what the science of evolution is about. I think we know that answer to that question.......LOL
Evolution is like Mormonism, it presents itself as being factual, yet there's not a single shred of evidence to back up its claims. It wins the minds of people through propaganda and strong arm tactics like the one in this article. If it's so legitimate, why the need to "defend" it? I'll tell you why. Because it is rife with gaping holes and unsubstantiated claims. Just watch the Discovery Channel and you'll see. The fact is
• 95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
• 95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
• 95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates,
including insects.
• The remaining 0.0125% were vertebrates, mostly fish.
Now, with only .0125% of ALL fossils being vertebrates, how in THE WORLD do you build such fantastic stories of dinosaur habitats (as The Discovery Channel does) and pass it off as fact??
If God indeed used the supernatural to create, then it's not God who is out of step but naturalism and the "scientists" who follow it.
Ozarkprof,
Sorry to be so long in responding to your post of last Friday. In your post you state to me
Viking:
The fundamental notion of critical thinking is that the student draw her/his own conclusions. What is important is that once the conclusions are drawn, they be evaluated and compared to those supported by the data. This is a critical part of modern science education, because developing supportable conclusions is a skill that can be learned, but only through practice.
I presume this was in response to my criticism of the vice chairs (in the article) urging that students be allowed to JUMP to their own conclusions.
First you are incorrect when you state that “The fundamental notion of critical thinking is that the student draw her/his own conclusions†While developing personal conclusions is a worthwhile goal that may arise from critical thinking it is not the fundamental notion.
The fundamental notion of critical thinking is that propositions, claims, theories, etc. should be subjected to critical analysis through tests of evidentiary support and logical coherence.
Second you are incorrect when you state “What is important is that once the conclusions are drawn, they be evaluated and compared to those supported by the data.†Conclusions are not DRAWN they are arrived at, Inferences are drawn. However in reading the full sentence it appears that what you may be meaning to discuss are Hypotheses which when proposed are then subjected to evaluation or testing based on available data and evidence.
You close by stating that “This is a critical part of modern science education, because developing supportable conclusions is a skill that can be learned, but only through practice.â€Â
This is somewhat more correct. However I would suggest that
1. teaching of the scientific method has been a critical part of EFFECTIVE science education for nearly a thousand years.
2. It would be more accurate to state developing “supportable hypothesis and ultimately theories†rather than conclusions is a skill that can be learned through practice.
Finally you can find an excellent basic discussion of the scientific methods history and formulations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
scits, I certainly hope you're right on the issue of allowing students to question evolution, but this article makes it seem that they won't.
believer, I understand you reluctance to get into the technical details, as I have said, my knowledge of the technical details of evolution are limited too. Actually, the very reason I stated earlier, that the experts should be the ones that decide on the curriculum.
I dont think anyone said a student can't question evolution, but in order to be credible, they would need data.
scits, I let those who are a whole lot more knowledgeable in the scientific arena respond to the weaknesses area, but according to this the students won't even be allowed to question the strengths of evolution. And as I said earlier that to me totally negates one of the most important ingredients in a person receiving a well-rounded education and is at the heart of the learning process.
agent, with reference to your 12:32 post,it appears however that if this resolution is approved those 4th graders won't be allowed to question or challenge what appears to be either weaknesses or strengths in the area of evolution. Plus based on your support of this resolution it appears that if you based your view of the Scopes Trial on this resolution alone you would support having creationism only taught because your decision is being driven by the resolution only and not the debate over evolution and creationism.
DP "Let's get demonstratable science learned in the science class first. "
There are plenty of demonstratable science:
Fossil record (transition forms).
Genetic mapping (gene drift/mutations).
Breeding of plants and animals (plant hybreds-modern agriculture, dog breeds).
Bacteria (penicillin resistance)
Virus adaptation (AIDS).
Fruit flies (evolutionary changes in the lab).
believer, "basically at the Scopes Trial they were trying to keep anything that opposed creationism out of the classroom "
I guess in a way, but in the Trial even though Scopes was found guilty, the case was a landmark event as it exposed the creationist side for what it was - NOT SCIENTIFIC - and and evidence based and b/c of this its further attempts were drawn into court not on 'teaching evidence for creationism', but for 'giving both equal time' as if this was a logical method for teaching in science. It would be like teaching both alechemy and chemistry and then just letting the kids decide, aka, 'letting them jump to their own conclusions'. This recent attempt is just the latest in attempts to have evolution indirectly questioned, watered down, or barely discussed at all, which is fine as if you can't have it not taught, at least have it critiqued in 8th grade biology (rolls eyes).
beleiver "My issue here is with the principle of not allowing weaknesses and strengths to be questioned......"
I have to ask, what are the [scientific] weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution?
What are the strengths of Creationism (scientific).
DP,
"This whole evolution/creation thing in science is causing us to fall behind the rest of the planet and is a cause of the trade deficit."
Huh? I think this is a non-sequitor, I don't see how our students failing in evolutionary science = trade deficits. Our students don't do just poorly in evolutionary biology, they do generally poorer in all sciences relative to other westernized first world countries, all of these countries which do better in science also do better in understanding and accepting evolution.
believer, "when we were in middle or high school did we have all the answers, of course not, but did that keep us from questioning issues, of course not,"
Think about it in this respect. Science is never final, and so we can all mutually agree somethings in the comming years and decades will be fleshed out with further evidence and testing, that is, the overall picture of what is going on becomes more refined with time, that is how it works systemically. Having 4th graders ask questions I think is perfectly fine, but also we should address those questions with what factual evidence we can use to support at the time and not go off on endless weaknesses of the given theory while ignoring all the supportive evidence. As you know, we may not have all the answers as of now, but those areas which we don't understand shrink over time and as a conseuence we are left over arguing over nominal details.
believer, "which side would you have supported in the Scopes Trial?"
I guess I'd have to go with the evidence and what it supported. At the time of the Scopes Trial the arguement was over evolution being taught and that doing so was illegal, but in retrospect it's no more illegal than teaching any other science, and like all other sciences as time goes on and more evidence is gathered and tested we end up with a clearer picture of reality.
"The reason creationism entered into the discussion is because creationists continually look for ways to undermine the teaching of evolutionary science and attempt to get creationism into the science classroom. "
I'm a creationist and I don't think either should be taught. Our students have trouble with simple science that can be recreated in a classroom and knowing all the elements! Let's get demonstratable science learned in the science class first. This whole evolution/creation thing in science is causing us to fall behind the rest of the planet and is a cause of the trade deficit. We can buy it but we can't make it efficiently.
The problem isnt science nor the evidence of how all things work. Christians welcome this with insight and wisdom.
The Problem is when scientists refuse to accept any credible explanation of how all of it came about. That is the problem, not science, not evidence.
There are two world views at work here, one says: NO GOD.
The other says, "We Glorify and Magnify your name Jesus for the wonderous way you made all things."
Thats it. All there is to it.
Satan wants to deceive you into thinking there is no God and to replace him with your God of rebellion: Evolution.
It really is that simple.
scits, basically at the Scopes Trial they were trying to keep anything that opposed creationism out of the classroom which I believe they are trying to do with this resolution only this time it is anything other than evolution by saying you are not allowed to question or challenge the weaknesses or strengths of evolution and you and agent appear to support this view. So if you think this resolution is appropriate and would have held that same view when the Scopes Trial was before us it appears that you would have supported keeping anything other than creationism from being taught in the classroom. My issue here is with the principle of not allowing weaknesses and strengths to be questioned as opposed to the subject that those restrictions will be placed on that being evolution.
believer "Given what you've said on this site you would have opposed the teaching of evolution in the classroom,"
I never said that, I said I oppose teaching creationism, is that what you meant to say?
"Hopefully, you'll see that as a compliment ...."
Yes I do consider your comment a compliment.
Indeed, we usually disagree, sometimes I can be a bit harsh to some on CP, as they can to me. I dont fall into that with you because I respect your comments, they are well reasoned and thoughtfull, even though we rarely agree, and your posts are polite, I do respect your point of view even though sometimes it might not seem that way.
I will say this though, your prayers for me are probably a waste of your time, but I do appreciate the effort.
scits, when we were in middle or high school did we have all the answers, of course not, but did that keep us from questioning issues, of course not, last time I checked that's how students learn is by being allowed to ask the tough and challenging questions and that's why teachers go to college and graduate school so they can answer them. Let me ask you like I asked agent who would you have sided with at the Scopes Trial? Given what you've said on this site you would have opposed the teaching of evolution in the classroom, but scits I know you better than that because you're a non-Christian version of me!!! Hopefully, you'll see that as a compliment even if I do continue to pray for you!:)
believer, The reason creationism entered into the discussion is because creationists continually look for ways to undermine the teaching of evolutionary science and attempt to get creationism into the science classroom.
Let me ask you this, how are students, that have little knowledge of a subject, in a position to challenge areas that require expertise that take years to acquire?
I would like to know what chairman Bradley, stated "Evolution is not a fact" would list as "strengths and weakness". The 800 scientist that oppose the language see if for what it is- an attack on the science of evolution and another attempt by the creation crowd to weaken the teaching of evolutionary science. The science of evolution certainly has questions that have yet to be answered, as do virtually all areas of science as i have already stated. A question yet to be answered I don't think would be considered weakness by scientists. Unless creationist can bring credible data and observation, they should not be in the science classroom. As far as the content of text books and the curriculum taught, for any subject, the decision should be left to those that are most knowledgeable, that usually does not include school board members.
agent, I'm surprised to see you here on the weekend, but based on your view which side would you have supported in the Scopes Trial? Based on your scientific knowledge I believe you would have sided with those who supported evolution, but based on the views you've shared here, I sense you would have supported the school district in keeping anything out of the classroom that would have questioned creation as presented in the Bible.
ozarkprof, did you missed the very first sentance of the article?
"encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to strengths and weaknesses of evolution"
and
"Barbara Cargill, the vice chair of the board's Committee on Instruction, said giving students the freedom to discuss both sides of evolution will ensure them a "well-rounded education."
Where's the part describing them discussing strengths and weaknesses of any of science theory BUT evolution? Time to call a spade a spade here.
steiner , "Why should we accept evolutionary theory that may seem obvious to you? "
Oh I don't know, maybe the supportive evidence? Just like the supportive evidence that regardless of mass (not size) objects fall at the same rate.
"the proto-evolutionists believed that flies, maggots simply evolved from spoiled meat and the dirt around them (sound familiar?)..."
Since when has the origins of life been part of evolutionary biology?
"Many accepted this view as self evident. Pasteur didnt. Pasteur, a Christian, was able to disprove their theory."
No, he falsified the then hypothesis of maggots comming from rotting meat, it was never a science theory as it never had any supportive evidence for it.
"but this resolution forbids any type of questioning with regards to the weaknesses or strengths of the theory of evolution. "
In the classroom, yes. But not in the labs and universities and private research labs, we discussed the physical time and $$ constraints involved in doing so in regular classes, and how singling out only evolution isn't logical. Again, there simply isn't the time as it is to teach all the supportive evidence for evolution, so why in the world would we then teach things which is can't yet explain? As it is, they don't really teach much about the fossil record, embryonic development, genetics, they mostly focus on biology and a little taxonomy. I would love for them to disucss genetics, the ERV's, human chromosome 2 fusion, the defunct Vitamin c synthesis gene, and on and on, but I also realize there simply isn't the time.
I am still waiting for any creationist to explain based on objective evidence why Archaeopteryx is 'fully bird'? Ozarkprof, Steiner, wont you have a go at it?
"The materialists of the time believed in spontaneous generation, another term for evolution."
ummmm, not. spontaneous generation was a hypothesis for how life could possibly originate, at the time there were other compeating ideas and they too were falsified and having been falsified those scietists (materialists) have long since not reffered to it as it was debunked long ago. Now, we refer to organic chemistry and abiogensis for hypothesises that could explain lifes origins.
Again, the origins of life isn't evolutionary biology. Evolution deals with the diversity of life, not the origins of life. With you and Ozarkprof describing evolution as the origins of life and the origins of the universe, is it any wonder you don't understand the evidence for evolution?
steiner , "Most sciences are taught, or at least ought to be taught from a perspective that is not final..."
If one understands the very bascis of Science, that being that ALL theories are tentative and open to further critique, than it would be obvious none are at any point final. However, this doesn't mean we can't form a logical conclusion based on consistant empircal evidence which is supportive beyond any reasonable doubt.
Evolution is just a ploy to lead the Faithful from God; and keep many in its tight grip of darkness. Just one of many traps to destroy you, to lead you into rebellion against the one who truely loves you and cares for you. Satan is a LIAR, DECEIVER, he careful sets his traps with the right bait.
When you set a trap for an animal, you disguise it, put in it something that will lure them into it. When it has closed you cannot escape, so tight is its grip you will die. So it is with evolution, satan knows once in its jaws you will not escape and die in your sins.
This is how Spiritual warfare is fought, Truth against lies.
The Living Truth is the Lord Jesus, and how satan wants to lead you away from him.
scits, you and agent are the ones who have brought creationism into the discussion and yes I do read your posts and I believe you read mine and I don't always agree with what you say and vice-versa. I simply used the issue of creationism to make my point, but as a matter of fact there was a time when that was true which led to the Scopes Trial. And as I told agent it deeply concerns me when students are prohibited from questioning or challenging issues of any kind. I went to school during the Vietnam War when students were told that very thing and I fought it then and I will fight it now and scits I know with all my heart you don't buy this resolution at all.
believer, with all due respect to you my friend, creationism is not a theory, at least in scientific terms. I have to say, it does not appear that you read my post closely, because I covered all of that.
scits, but this resolution forbids any type of questioning with regards to the weaknesses or strengths of the theory of evolution. And if a mandate came out that said no one was allowed to question the weaknesses and strengths of creationism you and others would be up in arms and by the way rightfully so. Reality is that both theories have both weaknesses and strengths and students should be not only allowed but encouraged to question them.
believer "we can't bring out the data because if we did we would be guilty of challenging the weaknesses and strengths of evolution, which according to this group of 800 scientists is verboten."
Who would the we be? If the "we" are the students, then they would not be qualified to determine what the "weaknesses and strengths of evolution" might be. Would Board Vice Chairman Bradley be qualified to challenge the technical details of evolution? Based on his understanding of a theory, I would say not.
To re-post agent's remarks:
"There is a time and place for everything, and discussing the weaknesses of ANY Science theory shouldn't be done in grade schools. Period. Teach the supportive evidence. If they want to shift the paradigm, have them study the evidence and devise tests which refute the given theory after they've graduated from college."
I would add, few people are qualified to judge the validity of any scientific theory unless they have become specialists in a particular scientific discipline(s). We all depend on the specialist to determine the validity of any field of endeavor, the unfortunate limits of the human mind. My training is in the chemical sciences, not biological, so I depend on the specialists help me understand, in general terms, the science of biology and evolution, I do not pretend to be an expert in those fields. Einstein was a physicist, he probably had little knowledge of the technical details of other sciences such as biology and evolution. He would depend on the specialists in those areas to help him understand them.
To go back to agent's comment, "Teach the supportive evidence". That is what should be taught in the science classroom. Does creationism have supported evidence?
Getting back to your point of challenging evolution, presumably by creationists, I would say that it can be done, provided it is supported by scientific data. If there are data that disprove evolution using the scientific method, then papers should be submitted to peer reviewed scientific journals.
Before you correct my grammar, the following:
"It is very important the fundamental principle of questioning be taught in science classes at all levels."
should read:
"It is very important that the fundamental principle of questioning be taught in science classes at all levels."
Agent:
Evolution wasn't singled out in the standards, in fact it says that all theories and hypotheses are to have the strengths and weaknesses taught. This is why, as a science prof, I object to having that language removed. It is very important the fundamental principle of questioning be taught in science classes at all levels.
Viking:
The fundamental notion of critical thinking is that the student draw her/his own conclusions. What is important is that once the conclusions are drawn, they be evaluated and compared to those supported by the data. This is a critical part of modern science education, because developing supportable conclusions is a skill that can be learned, but only through practice.
The irony that todays materialists/atheists will and do not wish to see, has always bitten them.
Look at Pasteur. The materialists of the time believed in spontaneous generation, another term for evolution. At the time, they could not believe anything else, because they could not see germs/bacteria.
Just because they could not see them, did not mean that their science was final and conclusive. Now, we are reminded that what they cannot see cannot be there.
Imagine, these fellows could not see what is now described as a whole kingdom(monera)...yet they vehemently argued their points and their science based on what they saw...
The futility of materialism...and atheism.
Look at how Galileo approached the science of falling objects...
It was evident to the great majority, at the time, that larger, massive objects fall faster than smaller ones...No one questioned it? The greatest of minds agreed with this idea..
Why should we accept evolutionary theory that may seem obvious to you?
During the time of Pasteur, the proto-evolutionists believed that flies, maggots simply evolved from spoiled meat and the dirt around them (sound familiar?)...
Many accepted this view as self evident. Pasteur didnt. Pasteur, a Christian, was able to disprove their theory.
Now, according to your way of thinking, evolution is the only explanation for differentiation...
You may be sure...I am not.
You may think that the speed of light has always been a constant...you may be sure...I am not.
You may think that atheistic thinking is the best approach to life...I dont.
agent, you're totally wrong in your assumption of me, I would have no problem whatsoever with evolution being taught alongside creationism in fact I would invite it. I want children to be exposed to all valid viewpoints of an issue and evolution is a valid viewpoint. We did not educate our son in a bubble and we homeschooled him, but we exposed him to other points of view and took him various places to be exposed to those points of view so when he became an adult and was on his own he would be prepared to deal with the issues of life and appreciate the diversity of the world we live in. I think this is one of the major problems in many evangelical churches is that they tend to shelter their children/youth from the real world and when they go out into to the real world they can't handle it and I believe that's why so many of them so quickly fall away from their spiritual beliefs and roots.
Agentorangex,
Most sciences are taught, or at least ought to be taught from a perspective that is not final...as is what you are asking us to do with evolution. Ultimately, what Mr. Bradley said in regards to having children reach their own conclusions...that is in essence what we look for, in students...We wish that they analyze, and use what they have learned to jump to conclusions, or come up with their own ideas.
Not your own ideas, but their own, based on what is taught.
"my view of evolution has nothing to do with it."
Ok, so why should we single out evolution and not all other sciences and teach them under the 'strengths and weaknesses' advocated herein? I think it's fair to say that this wont happen for all other sciences for the most part don't involve the same theological consequences. Evolution is singled out purposely, make no mistake.
"I believe that some of our greatest thinkers as grade school kids questioned everything and now were telling them no you can't."
It's not so much that kids can't question it, as some already do in and outside of class, and especially those home schooled. The point is, should the schools be able to teach both the S & W for evolution, and if so, why not for all other sciences? To hold evolution to such a standard and no other sciences sounds awfully wrong.
Again, I think we can talk to no end on this, but still we will come back to certain physical constraints like budgets and time allotted for class discussion per course. That said, in regards to such constraints we should teach the science according to the best supportive evidence, there simply isn't the time to go over ALL the evidence, or what the theory can't yet explain, we should instead teach the supportive evidence.
"I'll agree the teaching of evolution without allowing the teaching of creationism bugs me"
And since teaching both isn't allowed, 'teaching strengths and weaknesses' is the best next course of action. Like most creationists, if you could have your way evolution wouldn't be taught alongside creationism ( I think i am right with you, but I could be wrong), let alone evolution being taught at all. The reason we don't teach creationism is for lack of genuine supportive evidence.
agent, I am adamantly opposed to this resolution and believe it or not my view of evolution has nothing to do with it. I have been in churches where it was basically forbidden to question the Pastor or church leaders or to question issues in the Bible and I was just as opposed to that as I am to this. Of course I'm also one of probably a handful of Christians who think "Aqualung" should be listened to by all Pastors and church leaders with regards to Christianity becoming more about religion than about a relationship which it should be. I believe that some of our greatest thinkers as grade school kids questioned everything and now were telling them no you can't. I'll agree the teaching of evolution without allowing the teaching of creationism bugs me, but this just downright ticks me off and as I said evolution has nothing to do with it and even if it were creationism I'd still be ticked.
"the issue here is whether or not students should have the right to question the weaknesses or strengths of evolution"
Think this one over, do grade students generally understand Science, let alone evolution to the extent to where they can critically analyze it? No, generally they don't. To understand many of the lines of evidence from independent fields requires many years of research (generally a degree to boot) and grade school kids are generally only taught basic biology.
And this goes for all other science theories where kids are for the most part generally ignorant of, the only distinction here is made for evolution b/c for some *cough* *cough* people find it theologically concerning and seek to challenge it indirectly as they have done over and over for decades. This is why no other science theories are being discussed for 'teaching both strengths and weaknesses'. No, the sole position here is to do nothing more than seed doubt, water down evolution again and other previously mentioned creationist tactics.
"you can't tell me that you really support this resolution, do you"
In the most general sense (outside of just evolution) I would say I wouldn't support it. However, my reasons for supporting it stem directly from how in the recent past Creationists have continually tried (and continue to) to avoid teaching evolution at all costs.
There is a time and place for everything, and discussing the weaknesses of ANY Science theory shouldn't be done in grade schools. Period. Teach the supportive evidence. If they want to shift the paradigm, have them study the evidence and devise tests which refute the given theory after they've graduated from college.
agent, nice try, but I'm not biting since this issue here is not creationism versus evolution, the issue here is whether or not students should have the right to question the weaknesses or strengths of evolution. And my sense is the word strengths is nothing but an attempt to cover their behind in this ridiculous resolution. And agent as I've told you in the past I have nothing but the highest respect for you knowledge in the area of evolution and science, you can't tell me that you really support this resolution, do you?
believer,
"we can't bring out the data because if we did we would be guilty of challenging the weaknesses and strengths of evolution,"
In other words, you don't have ANYTHING to substantiate any claims of its weaknesses in the first place. If you did, you would be citing them by now and not playing games.
I explained the details about teaching science in class rooms below and how already creationists attempt to water down the courses, avoid the 'E word' and the subject itself when possible. To me, this sounds like the creationist side isn't even willing to have it taught as it requires in the first place.
Go ahead, cite some of the weaknesses (got any, really?) and then we can establish if they are at all worthy of discussion. As scitsonga and I mentioned, ALL science theories have gaps of areas which we don't fully understand yet, though these gaps do not jeopardize the overall validity of the theory itself. Also keep in mind that in grade schools there SIMPLY ISN'T the TIME to teach the evidence and lacking evidence for all sciences, there is only time to teach the supportive evidence for each science theory. If you want to teach all the strengths and weaknesses, then that works, but Evolutionary Theory can't be the only one held to this, ALL sciences must, and there simply isn't the time for that either. In science, we teach what the evidence supports, not the small nominal gaps of ignorance we can't yet explain.
"we creationists are not the ones who are afraid to have our views questioned"
Ok, then why based on empirical evidence can you conclude objectively Archeopteryx to be 'fully bird'? I realize this is out of your league and to understand the reasons for or against this requires research, but until you can explain why it's 'fully bird' as Creationists always do, then you can't possibly understand why we don't take creationists claims seriously. Go do the research on it and you'll see why it's so often defined as an intermediate and not simply 'fully bird'.
scits, we can't bring out the data because if we did we would be guilty of challenging the weaknesses and strengths of evolution, which according to this group of 800 scientists is verboten. Plus, scits as much as you and I disagree you can't tell me you really support this resolution, you are too open-minded to buy into this close-minded resolution.
agent, we creationists are not the ones who are afraid to have our views questioned it is those of you in the evolution camp who I would usually say "appear" to be afraid to have your views questioned, but based on this article I can definitely leave the word "appear" out and say who are afraid to have their view questioned even as you said by a 4th grader. This is the first time I have personally ever heard of such a request as this. If this was done in a religion or history class the very people who are in favor of this resolution would be the first to rightfully scream foul.
"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
This comment goes to the heart of the problem with science in the US. Average Americans dont know what science nor a theory means in science. So, would the vice chairman say Einstein's General Theory of Relativity "is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven"? Would his conclusion then be that Einstein's theory is not valid ? Thats the implication he makes as he says its a theory, not fact. The Theory of General Relativity actually describes gravity. Yes gravity, we and our children experience it everyday, but how can that be, its "only a theory". Should we teach our children "to jump to their own conclusions" about gravity. Afterall, its only a theory. The understanding of the nature of gravity and the development of the theory that lead to General Relativity took a few hundred years. The understanding of science us, takes a long time. Science is all about theories, without theories there would be no science. Without science and theories, we would not be on the internet because there would be no internet, there wouldn't be cars, medicines, medical technologies, radio, TV, DVD's, IPOD's, etc. Mankind would still be in caves.
Just as General Relativity is "only" a theory, so too is the science of evolution. It's foundations, as is General Relativity, is based on years and years of studies by scientists from around the world whose research are scrutinized by the scientific community. There were "holes" in the understanding of gravity, Not until centuries after Newton's gravity theory came along did Einstein and others come along to fill in the "holes", was a more complete understanding of gravity achieved. Even today, there are researchers looking to see if there are inconsistencies in Einstein's theory. Should they find them, revisions would be required. The same thing is true today with evolutionary theory. There are "gaps" or "holes" as the good CP folks like to say, but nothing to say that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect. Science is all about filling the gaps, otherwise a scientist wouldn't have much to do. As time goes on, the gaps in evolutionary science will be filled in OR if data comes along that refutes our understanding of evolution, then the theory will have to be modified or thrown out completely. This has not happened as far as I can tell.
To the creationist out there that say evolution is wrong, then bring out the data and have it published in peer reviewed scientific journals. As far as creationism is concerned, it has no place in the science classroom because it is not science, it is religion. I would say the average CP poster, and average American, really should to take some training in general science to better understand the world around them and to help understand why creationism has no place in the science classroom.
"Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
Seriously, with a comment like that it reeks of desperation as he can't openly speak on the validity of the theory based on evidence. By his logic though, students shouldn't bother reviewing evidence for gravity, atoms, electromagnetic, etc., they should just jump to their own conclusions prior to reviewing anything. Since when has 'jumping to ones own conclusions' ever been a sound method for establishing truth?
Wouldn't a more sensible approach involve analyzing and researching evidence and forming logical conclusions based on how consistent they are?
The discussion on this topic could be endless in the way these exchanges are going. It seems most comments here are talking past rather than to each other.
Setting the main topic aside I wonder if anyone else noticed the comment by the Vice Chair of the board.
""Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
Forget evolution. With views like that this guy shouldn't be allowed to be developing of reviewing standards on any subjects.
believer, I don't know how you can really justify in calling those who espouse evolution as good science as being 'chicken'. I would love anyone, anyone at all really, to explain what evidence for them would demonstrate evolution is good science, has supportive evidence, and would objectionably be sufficient for their level of critique. Usually, the 'chicken' in the debate is the one asking for fossil, genetic, geological, embryonic evidence only to run away after it's presented.
After all, it seems when I show up and demonstrate how somethings are wrong the metaphorical lights go on and the roaches scatter. Rarely do I get retort, as I presume they realize this is expert swimming area and the 'arm floaties' simply wont suffice here.
believer, vulnerable? No, I would recon that any person who has read about all, or even most, of the independent lines of evidence for evolution could never conclude that. Unfortunately, such a rigorous research and studying is not realistic within the confines of time for grade school education. At this grade level, they don't understand how science works or its methodology, even most adults do not understand this much. Evolutionary theory is constituted from so many independent lines of evidence that specialists are required and for example no single geneticist generally understands as much as a paleontologists in their respective field and vice versa.
If we are going to teach it we should do so in a very straightforward and matter of fact manner reffering to positive supportive evidence as this is always how science is taught. We don't teach a science by infering what it can't yet explain, that wouldn't be much of a class anyway (obviously). Also, we shouldn't teach it how creationists would prefer in avoiding the dreaded 'E word' at all costs or watering it down beyond comprehension. If you want them to understand it, and to do so in a timely manner you can't water it down.
It, like all science theories, has areas of nominal contention in which a given model (either gradualism or punctuated equilibrium) are competing based on evidence, but neither of these competing models destroy the unpinning theory itself. I have asked for any creationist on here to objectively explain via evidence why such a specimen like Archeopteryx is 'fully bird', as ICR, AIG, and other creation sites claim and so far nothing. They generally avoid it. When I ask others what level of evidence would suffice for them for evolution and then upon meeting the demand I am told 'they don't count' it simply portrays onside as being dogmatically narrow minded and unable to face the mirror.
agent, so is the theory of evoulition so vulnerable that these scientists fear the insightful question of a 4th grader?
What's apparent is listening to all the lame excuses offered on this site is that all of the evolutionists must have evolved from the breed of chickens are us and their afraid to see their theory of evolution have its feathers plucked if students were allowed to think and ask questions about possible if not probable weaknesses in their precious theory.
and you guys wonder why people don't understand evolutionary theory, the evidence and what it suggests....well, no wonder look no further than to the right of this webpage where at 'Creation?' 'Evolution?' (www.icr.org) it's all fluff and no substance, nothing peer reviewed or backed by any reputable science or scientists. Here is one quote from it
"Natural selection can only operate on the genetic material already present in a population of organisms. It cannot create new genetic information and subsequently change one kind of organism into another."
Well of course Natural Selection doesn't create the new genetic information, MUTATIONS do!!. Natural Selection simply selects which mutations are prefered and preserved each generation given enviromental pressures.
"However, the accumulation of deleterious (harmful) mutations does occur and the accumulation of these mutations leads to genetic degeneration."
No, absolutely wrong. First, there's a difference between mitotic and meiotic mutations. For example, we would never know the actual malevolent mutation rates in meiotic lines, as the zygotes would never develop! Second, harmfully mutations aren't passed on to the same extent as neutral ones as by natrual selection those organisms with truly harmfull mutations generally can't reproduce or wont get the chance to as they we be preyed on first relative to other organisms which don't posses this same mutation.
ozarkprof
"While individual adaptions can be demonstrated in lab experiments, distinct speciation is not."
Oh really…and what are these?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
"The worry that this is some kind of Trogan Horse to insert religion into science classes is spurious."
Suuuuuuure, that’s why all those previous court cases in which religious fundies have fought tooth and nail to get their biblical creationism taught in public schools and have failed resoundingly everytime is just a big coincidence then, right? All one need do is review who the leading ID proponents are and their record in Dover, the Pandas and People books, and how the whole ascension of ID is in direct result to the failing of creationism since 1987.
bcoontz,
"The changes within the population due to this filtering tend to reduce genetic information"
No, not really. Even a brief overview of gene duplication and how specific sequences can be duplicated (mutation) and then later used in descendant generations demonstrates how new genetic information is added. The simple insertion of a new base pair letter into a sequence causes a frame shift in which the sequence is then read differently and encodes for new protiens.
“Common descent requires, even over long ages, an incredibly fast gene adding mechanism.â€Â
Indeed it does, and this mechanism is per generation mutations, these in turn provide the required new genetic variation NS can then act on, and this is regardless of how diverse or narrow genetic diversity is within a population.
“The experiments to irradiate fruit flys so as to accelerate mutations has thus far shown that no new genetic information is being added and no new structures are being added to the population.â€Â
Another lie. The experiments with flies (Drosophila melanogaster) has been showing for decades that small specific changes to the Hox Genes section of an organism (not just flies) allows for organism to form fully independent limbs, wings, etc. Just research the ‘bithorax mutant fly’ for an example. These changes also weren’t the result of irradiation, but rather developmentally messing with specific genes.
“For Neo Darwinian evolution to be true most mutations would have to be beneficial and gain genetic information, but what we observe is that only a very small percentage are beneficial and none add to the genome of the creatureâ€Â
Virtually all mutations are neutral, only a small % are harmful or helpful, and those which are harmful based on the environment get selected away by natural selection.
‘Nachman and Crowell – 2000’ 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Deleterious (harmful) mutations per generation 3, 1.72 percent. I've seen a figure of 98 percent of human mutations being neutral, so maybe 0.28 percent are beneficial.
believer,
"The bottomline is that if evolution is as foolproof as evolutionists claim then they should have no problem with people talking to the possible weaknesses in evolution"
What holes? Seriously....Besides, ALL Science theories contain gaps of areas in which we don't fully undestand them, otherwise if we did we wouldn't be doing research now would we?
This has been discussed before, in a given grade school class there simply isn't enough time to cover ALL the eviedence as it is.
ozarkprof ,
"The Theory of Evolution as the origin of the universe is an extension of what can be demonstrated in the lab. "
Ummmmmm...What!? Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the origins of the universe, I covered this already in another evolution type article on christian post.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080914/-spore-game-helps-players-understand-intelligent-design.htm
believer
I meant to say by the way, if not evolution, then what. I asked it earlier but so far no answers have been forthcoming....
Right, chinese time...
igh-you may have a good point there.
believer- not afraid, just not willing to waste learning time, just because evolution is contrary to a groups theological view point.
Right...off for a chinese and a nice glass of red wine (or two!!)
Steve
believer,
"Why is it permissible and even encouraged..."
There is a distinction to discussing the strengths and weaknesses in the universities and private research labs as opposed to in the 4th grade classroom. In such lower level grades only the evidence is presented, as it's far too early for the students to even understand the overall theory let alone how science works.
I find some of the responses kind of comical since creationism is not even a player in this statement. These so-called scientists are saying it is forbidden to question any possible weaknesses in the theory of evolution and again my question that none of you pro-evolutionists have answered yet is what are they so afraid of? Please quit hiding behind the smokescreen of their trying to get creationism taught in science classes and tell me why are evolutionists so afraid, why is one of the key components of learning not allowed to be expressed when it comes to the theory of evolution?
Thank you!!!
Ok, here's the scoop. Life began when the Flagins (extraterrestrials) stopped by at Washington D.C. and found no intelligent life. Being the kind and wise beings they were, they decided to help. They used there trans-warp-widget, to increase the brain size of our government. Alas, it was to no avail, our government refused the 'brain power' offered them. And all is as it continues today.
I believe you can find reference to this at wiki-pedia.
Thanks for that j, many Christians have no problems with God and evolution so how is "GOD" an alternate explanation to evolution that can be taught in class.
Many thanks
Steve
GOD
Hi believer
Okay, lets move away from evolution by natural selection for a mo and look for an alternative explanation for the bio diversity on this planet. It stumps me what it will actually be, can you (or somebody else)put before me another possible explanation? I have asked this question before but never seem to be given a clear answer. Its a very simple question and therefore the answer should be very simple as well. Rememeber.....just put forward the alternative explanation.
Best wishes
Steve
Actually, young earth creationists do believe in natural selection, adaptation and speciation. The observations, though, point to a conservative and not creative process, a selecting and filtering of genetic traits already existing in a population. The changes within the population due to this filtering tend to reduce genetic information. So that there is no misunderstanding as to what I mean, it doesn't mean there are fewer genes only that some genetic traits get weeded out over time as populations isolate from one another. This is quite different from common descent. Common descent requires, even over long ages, an incredibly fast gene adding mechanism. This has not been observed. This is why Darwinian evolution had to be modified to what is called Neo Darwinian and added mutations as the mechanism to add genetic information. The experiments to irradiate fruit flys so as to accelerate mutations has thus far shown that no new genetic information is being added and no new structures are being added to the population. In addition, the creatures are now less able to survive in a natural setting. For Neo Darwinian evolution to be true most mutations would have to be beneficial and gain genetic information, but what we observe is that only a very small percentage are beneficial and none add to the genome of the creature. That is what we actually observe and that is scientific (remember observable, repeatable, etc.?) Similar structures(homologies)don't really help the common descent argument. If two different creatures each have two eyes, is this really evidence that they are somehow related? Or do you believe that common descent took place and then use any similarity to justify that position? I could go on for awhile, but let me finish with this: I think part of the problem in all of this is that we are not using words precisely enough. If by evolution we mean that things change is true, we can't use that to say that therefore, evolution (common descent) is true. The two do not necessarily equate.
The bottomline is that if evolution is as foolproof as evolutionists claim then they should have no problem with people talking to the possible weaknesses in evolution, but then again if it is as foolproof as they insist there would be no weaknesses that is of course if evolution is indeed foolproof.
"These examples can be called "research opportunities" or "points for future understanding". It's just plain nuts to call minor gaps in our understanding "weaknesses""
Now THERE is spin. Its like computer programmers calling bugs 'features'.
It's a shame that current scientific theory differs from the Bible on this issue. Ultimately though, evolution *is* the current scientific theory, and that is what should reasonably be taught in science class.
I know it totally sucks for people (like me) who don't believe in evolution, but the church has a bit of a history of meddling in science, and for all their good intentions, it often ended badly.
Besides, science is always moving and changing, which is great. (Stale science would be a little pointless). Maybe some new scientific evidence will come along some day which disproves evolution. Who knows? :-)
pro-science:
In what scientific sense do you use the term "nuts"? No need to be insulting to make your argument. You make a lot of assumptions about the backgrounds of the people on the Texas Board, then proceed to insult them by comparisons to "people who can't add two numbers together" and "people who can't read and write".
Evolutionary biology in fact is the study of the origins and subsequent development of organisms. I inserted the word "universe" by mistake, but the principle still applies. While individual adaptions can be demonstrated in lab experiments, distinct speciation is not. Speciation is proposed to be the result of the extension of the smaller changes that can be demonstration experimentally. It is in the extension that the potential problems/errors/weakness occur. When scientists use the word "weakness" it refers to a portion of a theory that fails to explain observed aberrations in otherwise consistent trends seen in scientific processes. I've been a practicing scientist and academic for over 30 years and I assure you that it really isn't that unusual for the term "weakness" to be used by scientists.
Just analyzed the actual current TEKS standards and the only reference to "strengths and weaknesses" is in the following science standard that first appears in the 4th grade curriculum and appears in each subsequent science standard:
"(3) Scientific Processes:(A) analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information;"
The worry that this is some kind of Trogan Horse to insert religion into science classes is spurious. Religious arguments are clearly precluded in the standard as written.
Intelligent design is not a weakness of the evolutionary theory of origins, it is a competitor to that theory. Classical ID (not the co-opted young-earth flavor presented by Ham, et al) in fact allows for adaptation. So, I'm not certain what your point is in the last quotation of your post. None of the previous posters made that statement.
As a science professor, I want students to carefully examine scientific theories in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Are you going to defend the caloric theory, just because it was a theory that was accepted? How about the geocentric theory? Clearly, you can see that to critically examine any theory in science is important and that just because a theory is examined doesn't mean that it will be rejected.
A coalition of Texas scientists warned the State Board of Education Tuesday not to inject politics or religion into new science guidelines for public schools.
"We should teach students 21st-century science, not some watered-down version with phony arguments that nonscientists disingenuously call 'weaknesses,' " said Sahotra Sarkar, a professor of integrative biology at UT.
"Calling 'intelligent design' arguments a weakness of evolution is like calling alchemy a weakness of chemistry, or astrology a weakness of astronomy."
Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools
A strong science curriculum is an essential part of a 21st-century education and should be based on established peer-reviewed empirical research. In 2008-09 the State Board of Education is revising the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards for the sciences.
Scientifically sound curriculum standards must:
Acknowledge that instruction on evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences;
Make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt;
Be based on the latest, peer-reviewed scholarship;
Encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to "strengths and weaknesses," which politicians have used to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses; and
Recognize that all students are best served when matters of faith are left to families and houses of worship.
We, therefore, call on the Texas State Board of Education to approve science curriculum standards that prepare Texas students to succeed in the 21st century.
Morning believer (well it is here, a fine crispy one if truth be told)..
Okay, why not challenge in class the evidence that the Earth is millions (your words) and not billions of years old, the truth is because that is the conclusion the evidence overwhemingly leads to unless bu for those who get their facts from AIG etc.. What I'm writing falls on deaf ears (or eyes if thats not a contradition).
Things that our kids should be taught in class and shown the evidence, that lead to all other theories being shown as insignificant are
The Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old
It formed from a circumstellar disc.
The materials for the disc (and their bodies) where formed in the supernovae of previously existing stars.
It is critical thinking that has lead us to these truths.
Best wishes
Steve
From another news article about Texas science education:
------
Tom Lee, a biology professor at Abilene Christian University, said it is "important to teach science in a science class."
Lee said that the biblical narrative was "not designed to be a science book" and that the gaps in our understanding about evolution are simply further "frontiers" to be explored and explained.
------
Notice he called gaps in our understanding "further frontiers to be explored and explained" and notice he didn't call those gaps "weaknesses".
Also notice that Tom Lee is a biology teacher at a Christian University. Apparently not all Christians are threatened by modern science discoveries.
ozarkprof, we are talking about evolutionary biology, which has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
Like our planet's orbit around the sun, evolution is one of the strongest facts of science. I don't hear anyone say the earth's orbit has weaknesses. There's no reason to say evolution has weaknesses. Ideas about the mechanisms of evolution may change in the future as new evidence becomes available. There are healthy debates about the minor details of evolution. Biologists still haven't finished determining the evolutionary relationships of living species, and this is an example of what will likely be made more accurate in the future.
These examples can be called "research opportunities" or "points for future understanding". It's just plain nuts to call minor gaps in our understanding "weaknesses".
Creationists wish evolution had weaknesses because evolution threatens their belief in Genesis. Just because these non-scientists are threatened by modern science is no reason to dumb down the teaching of evolution by dishonestly telling students that future research opportunities are weaknesses. Definitely talk about future research opportunities because that's what makes science so interesting. But don't give students the impression there's something wrong with evolution just because biologists will be forever learning more about the history of life.
The verbal sleight-of-hand is pretty amazing. Adaptation is easily demonstrated in the classroom laboratory. The Theory of Evolution as the origin of the universe is an extension of what can be demonstrated in the lab. It is this very extension that leads to potential error, a fundamental scientific principle. There is nothing "pro-science" in claiming that a scientific theory has no weaknesses. It is the error in every scientific investigation that is a potential weakness. The reason why specific theories are constantly changed is because the weaknesses in the theories (errors) are addressed through the modifications as a result of further experimentation. To claim that any theory is without weaknesses is in fact antithetical to a scientific approach to investigating the physical world around us.
live4jesus wrote "... am no expert in genetics, molecular or chemical biology, or paleontology."
You admit you're not an expert in genetics and molecular biology. Then why do you think you're qualified to say anything about evolutionary biology?
Many of the over 800 scientists in Texas who want evolution taught as fact are experts in molecular biology and genetics. Who is more qualified to decide what's in a high school biology curriculum, experienced scientists who have made countless scientific discoveries, or the non-scientists on the Texas State Board of Education?
Should we let people who can't add two numbers together decide what is taught in a math class?
Should we let people who can't read and write decide what is taught in an English class?
Do you understand my point? It's not fair to students to let people who know absolutely nothing about science make decisions about science curriculums.
Many creationists think their total ignorance of science is equal to the knowledge of the entire scientific community. Do I have to say why their attitude is crazy? Do I have to say why somebody who knows nothing about science is not qualified to make decisions about science curriculums?
Science teachers want to teach modern science. Evolution is the most important fact of biology and it should be taught as fact. If a non-scientist has a problem with the discoveries of modern science, who cares? Somebody who knows absolutely nothing about science is not qualified to say anything about science education.
What bugs me about the creationists is they want to make biology boring. Take out evolution or dumb down the teaching of evolution with imaginary weaknesses, and biology becomes as boring as stamp collecting. Then students learn how to hate science. If biology is properly taught, evolution would be a major part of every single biology lesson every single day. Then biology becomes exciting and students learn to love science. If the uneducated creationists had their way they would destroy science education by making it boring.
As a Wildlife Biology major at Colorado State University in the early 1980's one of my pro-evolutionary professors put the infamous evolutionary chart of the horse up on the screen. She explained to the class that although we had all seem and been taught in high school biology that the chart was real, it really was not. The various forefathers of the modern horse were not actually the forefathers of the modern horse. One was actually a living hyrax, and horses with more than one toe exist today. However, she said that the chart was valuable even though it was false because it taught what evolutionists want to teach and they don't have anything better!
But, I suppose that pointing out that little inconvenient truth would be to critical of evolutionists today with their open-minded approach.
Ironic, isn't it?
I studied biology in college, taught science in high school and do not believe the theory of evolution is true, and am no expert in genetics, molecular or chemical biology, or paleontology. In fact, most science teachers and professors are not either. Scientist often determine their position based upon what their peers concur is good science, but many bloggers here who claim to be making good scientific arguments are stating nothing scientific. Only their own philosophical presuppostions and present no mental arguments. Good science in not committed to making other people's minds for them. It is an interesting article, part of the ongoing discussion and battle (that is probably not to strong a word here) on the conclusions that must be presented to students. Many posts here are not scientific, only regurgitated talking points.
I hear that some Creationists are challenging that pesky theory of gravity. . . .
phil_4_13 wrote "And last where is your proof of any of the lies that you teach?"
It's not very nice to call virtually every biologist in the world a liar.
The proof you want is found in the DNA of living creatures. Evidence from molecular biology and genetics has shown beyond any doubt that all life is related and all life evolved from ancient species and common ancestors.
I suggest you study this evidence. You can't possibly expect anyone to explain it to you for free. It would take several years for an experienced scientist to explain all of it. You need to go to the library, the bookstore, amazon.com, and the internet. There's tons of evidence for evolution that will take you more than one lifetime to study. Get to work and study. Or continue living without ever understanding how your species developed.
BobTX wrote "If you're concerned about your kids, convince them that not everything they are taught is true."
What if the kids ask about those 800 scientists in Texas who want evolution taught as scientific fact? Should children be trained to distrust the entire scientific community? Should children be trained to think their biology teachers are liars?
"Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" are code words that mean "God did it".
I don't think anyone here would agree our planet's orbit around the sun has weaknesses. There's just too much evidence for the earth's orbit to say that.
Guess what. The evidence for the basic facts of evolution (including the fact that people and chimps share an ancestor) is more massive and just as powerful as the evidence for the orbits of planets. Biologists can see the history of life with their own eyes when they compare DNA sequences of different living species. This is why even the most religious biologists completely accept evolution as fact. They can't possibly deny what they are 100% certain is true.
Like the earth's orbit around the sun, evolution has exactly zero weaknesses. Planets orbit stars, and life very gradually changes into new species. These are just plain facts. It's not normal to deny facts just because they have religious implications.
Biologists will forever be learning more about the history of life, and that's why modern biology is incredibly interesting. These gaps in our knowledge are NOT weaknesses. They are research opportunities or points for future understanding. Research opportunities are NOT weaknesses. Telling a student that evolution has weaknesses is lying. A competent biology teacher would never agree to lie to her students, no matter what some incompetent uneducated religious fanatic on a school board tells them what to do.
As someone from TX, I should add - many people in science professions here are frequently mistreated because they "hate God" for holding evolutionary views. Even though they are incorrect in assuming I hold views I don't or just assuming I'm not a Xian, I've been cussed at, dismissed, and far worse because of being in a science profession - usually before I have even spoken with the person doing the judging. Always by fellow Christians. Always with them clearly thinking they are doing God's work by treating someone else poorly.
We Christians need to work as a community on disagreeing with people without being judgmental jerks who slander Christ's name by saying we treat them poorly in our name. If I'm getting heat without even believing this stuff, just because of my profession, you know it is bad. Colleagues of mine who do believe in evolution and have said so in public here in TX (respectfully and not even interested in picking a fight with Christians as far as I've ever seen), have been severely mistreated. They have gotten hate mail, death threats, been the targets of vandalism clearly related to being "godless evolutionists," had food thrown at them, and one friend of mine who was working with the park service as a biologist was assaulted by two guys b/c he talked about evolution in a presentation about warblers. Friends, down here, we look disgusting on this issue.
This might be part of why these scientists might not really want to have to have this debate every class they teach, etc.
phil "The proof of creation is in Genesis. "
How is that proof?
Anyone else think we are wasting precious time that could be spent actually ministering to people and sharing Christ with them by our obsessive focus on waging war with this group that holds different ideas? We would lead a lot more people to Christ by taking this massive amount of energy we have spent on a fight that alienates non-Christians from even being interested in hearing us out. Can't we just respectfully say we disagree, but don't really care to fight about it.
If you're concerned about your kids, convince them that not everything they are taught is true. That is a very Christian perspective on almost all the "lessons" of this world. As someone who operates within the science community, I can tell you that very few of the atheists around me are that concerned what other people believe. We would resent someone telling us what we can teach in our churches, most scientists resent being told they should not teach what they believe, based on the body of their investigations of the matter.
steveh20, it has nothing to do as to whether or not the earth is 6000 years old, but why won't the data that is supposedly saying the earth is billions as opposed to millions of years old be allowed to be questioned?
Why want these science types debate creationist like Dr. Ken Ham and many other Creation scientist? The proof of creation is in Genesis. They all want to believe what man has tried to prove with therories that have changed so many times everyone has lost count.
No these professors have to keep up the Big Lie so they can keep a pay check coming in. For anyone who has the studied the real evidence of creation versus evolution and has half a brain can see that evolution does not fit.
Don't condem any other persons beliefs until have at least spent time studying both sides. I was taught the lie in school here in Texas and have since learned the truth through studying books from Real Scientist.
I have many questions for the evolutionist, like explaining how it is possible for a cold blooded creature to change over to being warm blooded and survive being a deformed mutant? Or a single cell organism to evolve into a multi celled organism when your science can not explain it? And last where is your proof of any of the lies that you teach? It is all based on changing therories with no sound proof what so ever.
So why should those of us who dis-believe evolutions lies not be able to ask questions and search for the TRUTH?
I went and read the petition, and it DOES state, "encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to 'strengths and weaknesses'."
That statement is self-contradictory. Scientific reasoning, by definition, INCLUDES testing using experiments or further observations. Critical thinking INCLUDES seeking other explanations. (see nmri.niddk.nih.gov/workshops/0404/Scientific%20Reasoning-short- version%202.ppt for a concise explanation of both terms). The only valid critical thinking IS that which weighs pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses.
When we indoctrinate, rather than encourage free thinking, we stymy scientific advancement. whether one agrees with any given theory, it should always be examined and tested. Certainly, as scientists, you realize that by not analyzing and critiquing theories, we can not advance. It is only by examining and re-examining theories in light of new perspectives, or new information, do we refine, prove, or disprove said theories. Lively, respectful, discussion and debate help us analyze our positions and strengthen or change our positions.
I find this reminiscent of that time in history when the 'church' forbade certain theories to be discussed, accused people of heresy because of them, and even worse. Do you not find it ironic that the very community that was once in danger from the church is now acting like the church?
For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials as well as the ACLU I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science. I always let the students figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students.
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.
chicago, how can creationism be proven in an environment that won't allow evolution to be even questioned? Why are they so afraid to allow evolution to be questioned?
cottreau, students were not allowed to ask questions with regards to how various views were arrived at in the area of physics?
These 800 show nothing more than scientific elitism. "How dare anyone question what we believe! Our science is above question."
Doesn't sound very open minded to me.
YOU pesky Christians!! When will you admit we know whats best for you; O yes we do.
NOW submit to the authority of our scientists!! ZEIG HEIL !!!
We always know whats best, we know who you are you know..... we have our ...ways.
Resistance is Futile.
The people who signed this statement must be control freaks. If you aren't allowed to ask questions, then you're just being brainwashed. Critical thinking requires one to ask questions. Duh!
We don't sit in science class examining the validity of physics. Teachers are basically unqualified to determine if the cutting edge views (string theory versus loop quantum gravity) are right or wrong.
Why would it be any different with evolution? Evolution is, after all, pretty much in the same class as "physics" as an established science.
Why are so many Christians afraid of admitting that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
If you want to say that the Earth is six thousand years old, fine. Just don't complain when you can't obtain employment as a geologist.
As I've said before, it's perfectly fine to teach the position of "first causes" - - but in a PHILOSOPHY class. Certainly not in a science class until it can be proven by scientific methods.
Talmid said:
"If the "theory" of evolution is so sound, why would it matter if students are encouraged to look at it with a critical eye?"
Because then scientists will have been stood up by a teenager. It's all about their ego.
There is absolutly nothing wrong with asking critical questions regarding our teaching. I mean, how many times has science changed it's stance on so many other issues? It happens because someone questioned it's validity. Without that we cannot advance our minds, we will only be brainfed what to think.
If the "theory" of evolution is so sound, why would it matter if students are encouraged to look at it with a critical eye? After all, these supposed scientists have hung their own careers and credibility on it.
They're afraid the huge chasms their beloved theory has between its axioms and its paltry evidence. Since science entails that which can be observed, repeated and tested, then evolution is a bankrupt theory!
What about the strengths and weaknesses of Francis Crick's directed panspermia theory? Is that still OK, or is IT fact?
I suppose its a bit like my geology class, I don't want to waste my time going over arguements for the Earth being 6000 years old (and neither see any kids doing that and wasting their time either) I want to get on and learn the truth.
Regards
Steve
Why is it permissible and even encouraged in just about every other field of study to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of an issue, but when it comes to evolution that is to be considered to be a no-no? I mean we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of everything from a politician to a brand underwear, but when it comes to evolution that is to be declared off-limits to that type of scrutiny? What are these scientists actually afraid of?