Over 800 Scientists Stand Against Language Critical of Evolution

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

On the organization's blog site, staff member Robert Crowther pointed out that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was adopted by the Texas Board of Education over a decade ago, long before the Dover case, and that debate over it has been going on across the nation since then.

While the Discovery Institute has not yet issued comments regarding the current progress of the scientist signature campaign, Anika Smith, editor of the organization’s Evolution News & Views blog, has voiced her disapproval of the media’s coverage, singling out a recent AP article that gave no explanation for the signatories’ opposition to current language “except the unsupported claim that thoroughly examining Darwin's theory in the classroom is something only creationists do.”

“Actually, AP reporter Kelley Shannon is pretty sure that the whole thing is a creationist ploy to teach religion in our schools,” Smith wrote Wednesday.

The State Board of Education will begin discussing the proposed new standards this fall and have tentatively set a deadline of March 2009 for final adoption. Publishers use the state’s curriculum standards to create new science textbooks. The state is scheduled to adopt new science textbooks in 2011.

Pages: 12

View article on single page

Next Story : Evangelical Leaders Meet U.N. Chief

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2 | 3

mtgburrell »

Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:48 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

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.
pro-science »

Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

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.
crossfire »

Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

New thread of comments on this topic here: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081008/scientist-coalition-accused-of-suppressing-evidence-against-darwinism.htm
agentorangex »

Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:20 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

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.
abb3w »

Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:20 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

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)
abb3w »

Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:14 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
igh »

Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:41 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

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."
scitsonga »

Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:20 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agento,

Thanx much for your feed back on the book, I look forward to reading it .........
agentorangex »

Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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 »

Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"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?
igh »

Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
agentorangex »

Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:44 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"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.
scitsonga »

Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:15 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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?
agentorangex »

Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:04 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer, the petition is based on ââ‚¬Å“Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schoolsââ‚¬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
believer »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:52 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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?
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"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...
believer »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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?
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:14 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
igh »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:02 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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."
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:54 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"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.
scitsonga »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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?
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:09 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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?
believer »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:04 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
believer »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:31 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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?
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:17 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"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.
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:42 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"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? =)
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"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).
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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
agentorangex »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
scitsonga »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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 ..
tpique1 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
steveh20 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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
tpique1 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:22 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
steveh20 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:58 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

First cause..... How far back are you thinking?
tpique1 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:23 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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 manââ‚¬â€functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Virus adaptation (AIDS).
The issue is notââ‚¬â€never has beenââ‚¬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.
scitsonga »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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).
tpique1 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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
tpique1 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:02 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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
tpique1 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:44 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
scitsonga »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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........
scitsonga »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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
tpique1 »

Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:51 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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
ââ‚¬¢ 95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
ââ‚¬¢ 95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
ââ‚¬¢ 95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates,
including insects.
ââ‚¬¢ 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.
viking »

Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:02 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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 ââ‚¬Å“The fundamental notion of critical thinking is that the student draw her/his own conclusionsââ‚¬Â 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 ââ‚¬Å“What is important is that once the conclusions are drawn, they be evaluated and compared to those supported by the data.ââ‚¬Â 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 ââ‚¬Å“This is a critical part of modern science education, because developing supportable conclusions is a skill that can be learned, but only through practice.ââ‚¬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 ââ‚¬Å“supportable hypothesis and ultimately theoriesââ‚¬Â 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
believer »

Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:20 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
scitsonga »

Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
believer »

Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:56 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.
believer »

Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:52 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

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.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story