Explain evolution's weakness (Op-Ed: Why are evolutionists threatened by balanced teaching?)

The Bulletin (Oregon) ^ | July 3, 2006 | Pete Chadwell

[DaveLoneRanger]

Recently, the state of South Carolina joined Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas and New Mexico by approving statewide science standards which require a critical analysis of evolution in science classrooms. In these five states the standard-issue Darwinian evolution will still be taught, but with an interesting twist which ought to raise some eyebrows - the scientific WEAKNESSES of Darwinian theory will ALSO be disclosed.

In a country where ideals such as free speech, diversity, balance and tolerance are preached constantly, the remaining states DO NOT ALLOW the scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution to be presented in our public school science classrooms. This means that, in the state of Oregon (and 44 others) Darwinian evolution is taught as sheer dogma - scientific weaknesses are withheld from our students and Darwinian evolution is presented as a theory of origins that is incontrovertible.

It is important to note that of the aforementioned five states, precisely NONE has required that opposing theories of origins, such as Intelligent Design, be included in the state's science curricula. The standards adopted in those states require ONLY an objective presentation of the strengths AND weaknesses of evolutionary theory. It's important to scrutinize the media's reporting on this point because as these states have come forward, reporters have repeatedly spun the decisions as victories for Intelligent Design, as though Intelligent Design had some relevance in the decision and as though ID will be taught in these five states as a result. Yet nothing is further from the truth - there is no language in these five states' science standards which requires - or even allows - the teaching of Intelligent Design or any other competing theory.

[DaveLoneRanger]

A pretty good summary of the legal dispute. Most people know my position; we shouldn't need to use legislation to force balance in the classroom, and we should not enforce the instruction of Creationism OR its mushy alternative, Intelligent Design.

[Irish Rose]

And thus another firefight begins.

[DaveLoneRanger]

It is interesting to observe, howls of protest over a sticker that says parts of the theory of evolution are not 100% guaranteed true, and even these laws which do not require any further action beyond teaching the weaknesses of evolution will acquire outrage on the part of evolutionists.

By the way, Mr. Chadwell mentions the op-ed by Dawkins and Coyne; allow me to remind everyone that I wrote a full refutation here: "One Side Can Be Wrong" - Rebuttal of Dawkins/Coyne Evolution Opinion Piece

[DaveLoneRanger]

I hope everyone can be nice, and maybe this time js1138 won't call me an a**hole, RightWingProfessor won't call me a stupid little man, WildHorseCrash won't say I look absurd, Ichneumon won't call me an uninformed hack, orionblamblam won't insinuate that I am a paid Howard Dean employee, Thatcherite won't say I have a severe short-term memory problem, LauraleeBraswell won't call me an idiot, and RightWingAtheist won't say I've single-handedly ruined Free Republic.

I guess we know at least that RWP won't join the insults.

[Irish Rose]

You sound like a veteran of the evolution debates...though, when you consider how long and heated a single thread can get...

I'll hope too that everyone can be nice. Evolution is like immigration in that it's hard to come by a debate not strewn with gratuitous insults. People feel it, you know?

[muawiyah]

The hard-core, doctrinaire believers in evolution as the "be all, end all" of everything do sometimes seem to be victims of a serious personality disorder.

That's probably why they are so gung-ho to kill off the slighest criticism of their belief.

Would turn my back on most of 'em (if you catch my drift).

[DaveLoneRanger]

You might call me a veteran of them.

I haven't encountered a lot of emotion with the immigration threads, but maybe it's because I haven't involved myself in them.

And I completely agree with you; we need to reason through issues, not feel our way through them.

[George - the Other]

" In these five states the standard-issue Darwinian evolution will still be taught, but with an interesting twist which ought to raise some eyebrows - the scientific WEAKNESSES of Darwinian theory will ALSO be disclosed."

BOGUS STATEMENT ALERT

This is almost akin to a liberal lie, a half-truth.

What is being left out is that fact that scientists are reevaluating Darwin's theory all the time, because new finds are constantly being made all the time.

One major adjustment was the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium." Darwin had thought that future exploration would reveal a process of continual gradual evolution. It didn't. What the fossil record shows is long periods of stability. When evolution does occur, it is rapid. It is reasoned that stressors in the environment are the cause for this. Loss of normal food supply, disease, destruction of habitats.

To anybody who really knows about scientific method and how scientists do their job, there is no need to "raise some eyebrows" because probing the weaknesses of Darwin's theory is business as usual.

And another item for the less informed. "Evolution" is NOT Darwin's invention. It's a concept that's been debated from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers. What Darwin came up with was the idea of "Natural Selection" to explain what he observed in the fossil record during his voyage on the Beagle.

People can believe whatever they like, but in the terms of empiricism, where one basis their opinions on observable and measurable sources that can be tested, evaluated, modified and even proven wrong (the catch word is "proven")so far, evolution offers the best explanation.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

Single handedly ruined Free Republic??

Damn, must have been a good shootout.

[Tribune7]

RightWingAtheist won't say I've single-handedly ruined Free Republic.

Some people just hate to lose a debate.

[muawiyah]

I thought he came up with the demigod "Natural Selection", to explain the finches in the Galapagos. Not a ot of fossils on those volcanic islands you know.

[George - the Other]

"I thought he came up with the demigod "Natural Selection", to explain the finches in the Galapagos. Not a ot of fossils on those volcanic islands you know."

A good summery of Darwin can be found at http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

Some excerpts ...

"Most educated people in Europe and the Americas during the 19th century had their first full exposure to the concept of evolution through the writings of Charles Darwin . Clearly, he did not invent the idea. That happened long before he was born."

"It was during the beginning of the voyage that Darwin read the early books of Charles Lyell and became convinced by his proof that uniformitarianism provided the correct understanding of the earth's geological history. This intellectual preparation along with his research on the voyage were critical in leading Darwin to accept evolution."

"The Galápagos Islands have species found in no other part of the world, though similar ones exist on the west coast of South America. Darwin was struck by the fact that the birds were slightly different from one island to another. He realized that the key to why this difference existed was connected with the fact that the various species live in different kinds of environments."

"Darwin came to understand that any population consists of individuals that are all slightly different from one another. Those individuals having a variation that gives them an advantage in staying alive long enough to successfully reproduce are the ones that pass on their traits more frequently to the next generation. Subsequently, their traits become more common and the population evolves. Darwin called this "descent with modification."


"The Galápagos finches provide an excellent example of this process. Among the birds that ended up in arid environments, the ones with beaks better suited for eating cactus got more food. As a result, they were in better condition to mate. Similarly, those with beak shapes that were better suited to getting nectar from flowers or eating hard seeds in other environments were at an advantage there. In a very real sense, nature selected the best adapted varieties to survive and to reproduce. This process has come to be known as natural selection."

"Darwin did not believe that the environment was producing the variation within the finch populations. He correctly thought that the variation already existed and that nature just selected for the most suitable beak shape and against less useful ones. Some of Darwin's supporters ultimately described this process as the "survival of the fittest."

"In 1798, Thomas Malthus , an English clergyman and pioneer economist, published Essay on the Principles of Population. In it he observed that human populations will double every 25 years unless they are kept in check by limits in food supply. In 1838, Darwin read Malthus' essay and came to realize that all plant and animal populations have this same potential to rapidly increase their numbers unless they are constantly kept in check by predators, diseases, and limitations in food, water, and other resources that are essential for survival. This fact was key to his understanding of the process of natural selection. He realized that the most fit individuals in a population are the ones that are least likely to die of starvation and, therefore, are most likely to pass on their traits to the next generation."

"Both Darwin and Wallace failed to understand an important aspect of natural selection. They realized that plant and animal populations are composed of individuals that vary from each other in physical form. They also understood that nature selects from the existing varieties those traits that are most suited to their environment. If natural selection were the only process occurring, each generation should have less variation until all members of a population are essentially identical, or clones of each other. That does not happen. Each new generation has new variations. Darwin was aware of this fact, but he did not understand what caused the variation. The first person to begin to grasp why this happens was an obscure Central European monk named Gregor Mendel. Through plant breeding experiments carried out between 1856 and 1863, he discovered that there is a recombination of parental traits in offspring."

[editor-surveyor]

BOGUS 'ALERT' ALERT

Nothing in post #8 is in any way related to the truth.

[Oztrich Boy]

Are you trying to ruin this thread by using facts and reason?

[muawiyah]

And, as usual, Mendel didn't bother to tell anyone else about it ~ although, suspiciously, he fudged his results.

None of these people had any idea that epigenetic processes occur. Of course, few today know that.

[DannyTN]

"I hope everyone can be nice, and maybe this time ___ won't call me an *$%$&$!"

Well, you know the evolutionist street will explode at the slightest challenge. Some people explode at cartoons, some people explode at stickers.

[dmz]

Dave - I will throw no stones, call no-one names, and will not accuse you of ruining FR. But from a scientific outlook, your writing on this topic leaves something to be desired, as you enter the debate with a conclusion already in hand (creationism is the Truth). Not exactly in keeping with the scientific method.

It is also disingenuous for you to suggest that evos routinely fall back into an appeal to authority argument, as that seems to be nearly your entire argument, your appeal to the Bible. That and the patting yourself on the back that Bush and Frist seem to agree with you (as though you were the first to make the arguments in favor of balanced teaching of the topic).

Your use of other freepers handles (freeper etiquette usually suggests a courtesy ping to the named ones) in this thread, and your extensive list of "mean" things written to you suggests (to me) that you enjoy rolling in the mud enough to catalog those statements on your fr home page. Sort of like a badge of honor.

Anyway, your thread has been out there now for about 18 hours and no pro-evos are here to insult you, flame you, or to provides more quotes for your home page.

You know darn well that a number of those who agree with you routinely throw out nastygrams at those on the pro-evo side, and to whitewash that suggests that balanced debate is of as little interest to you as it is to the name callers on the pro-evo side.

[George - the Other]

"Nothing in post #8 is in any way related to the truth."

Interesting statement. Let's see you prove it ... that is, take it point by point, and offer counter evidence that is based on factual evidence, and not a bunch of conjectures and assorted opinionated mumbo-jumbo.

George

[George - the Other]

"And, as usual, Mendel didn't bother to tell anyone else about it"

As usual? How so? Were there other things Mendel wrote we don't know about? I know Copernicus didn't bother to publish his observations refuting the Catholic Church's belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, until the last year of his life, literally on his deathbed, because living in Poland, he would have been burned to death as a heretic.

Tycho-Brae and Kepler were able to freely build on his work because the lived in protestant Denmark.

And Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life for wanting to publish his findings in Italian, the language of the people. The church actually agreed with his observations, but were afraid "normal" people couldn't handle the truth, and wanted him to publish only in Latin.

So where is the "as usual" in all of this?

George

[GoLightly]

So you're saying, South Carolina, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas and New Mexico teach the subject the same way its taught in the other forty five states? Or are you trying to say that the other forty five states are teaching the subject wrong?

[ahayes]

I wonder if you've had time to look into the completeness of the Ambulocetus archetype and determine whether or not your source was lying? I've been out of town so I looked at your posting history since then and this doesn't seem to be resolved.

[George - the Other]

I'm saying that to me, the wording of the original text implies that once a scientific theory is published, it becomes an absolute truth that the scientific community never questions - but that is not what scientific method is about.

All scientific concepts, ideas and theories are subject to scrutiny. The exact process is called empiricism, which means basing one's scientific opinions on data that can be observed and measured.

To me, this more proves the existence of God then the notions offered by creationism, which cannot be observed and must be maintained by faith alone.

There is nothing wrong with this. However, if we believe that God created the entire universe, including the laws of physics, then we can observe God's majesty in His ever expanding process of creating of the universe.

Darwin was an educated and brilliant man, but he did not conceive the idea of evolution, which was an idea debated since the times of the ancient Greeks.

He based his belief in Natural Selection in part on what he observed during his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle and the writings of other men, like Charles Lyell, who were gaining a greater understanding into how our planet evolved.

So as I see it, evolution not only proves the existence of God, but reveals God's majesty in doing so.

Also consider this ... there was a time when we believed the earth was the center of the universe and the planets traveled in perfectly circular orbits around it. To question this was to invite punishment by the church. Through scientific observation, we know know this to be false.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Good question. I've done a lot of exploration on the internet. There's actually surprisingly little detail altogether. There are various different reasons why whale evolution as a whole is inconsistent, but I still cannot account for the difference between AiG's explanation of the specimen in question, and the post from Ichneumon.

I note that Darwin Central has a similar icon with bespotted shades of the fossil in the same areas as AiG:


I've sent in inquiry to AiG, but haven't received anything back. Holiday weekend, I assume, plus the usual backlog. When I hear back, I'll ping everyone and let you know. Until then, I can only wait for their explanation.

[GoLightly]

I'm saying that to me, the wording of the original text implies that once a scientific theory is published, it becomes an absolute truth that the scientific community never questions

From my POV, you took a huge leap to draw that conclusion from the original piece.

Also consider this ... there was a time when we believed the earth was the center of the universe and the planets traveled in perfectly circular orbits around it. To question this was to invite punishment by the church. Through scientific observation, we know know this to be false

When the "scientific community" acts a whole lot like the church of old, jealously guarding its dogma by trying to silence any who don't fall in line, those of us who love science should not sit by silently.

All scientific concepts, ideas and theories are subject to scrutiny. The exact process is called empiricism, which means basing one's scientific opinions on data that can be observed and measured.

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

ToE, Creationism & ID could all be wrong. The actual theory to explain nature may never be made, because the right person who could have come up with the theory was indoctrinated with current theory, taught *what* to think, instead of being trained *how* to think. Objective presentation of ToE's weaknesses is a good start.

What you believe & how you arrived at those beliefs, not really relevant to this discussion. What is taught to our school children & how it is taught, is.

[muawiyah]

As is usual in arguments like this, someone made a discovery that fits the story, but he didn't tell anyone about it. Ergo, all the folks who were supposed to be influenced by such a discovery weren't ~

[George - the Other]

>I'm saying that to me, the wording of the original text implies that once a scientific theory is published, it becomes an absolute truth that the scientific community never questions<

"From my POV, you took a huge leap to draw that conclusion from the original piece."

To me it was obvious.

George

[HayekRocks]

Recently, the state of South Carolina joined Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas and New Mexico by approving statewide science standards which require a critical analysis of evolution in science classrooms.

I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out this statement is not entirely correct. In fact, it seems to be very incorrect.

South Carolina rejected the antievolution standards. The Senator who was pushing the standards had to settle for a budget item saying books purchased by the school system would have to critically analyze evolution.

I'm sure you didn't intend to mislead anyone, but it is well to maintain a high standard of accuracy, so as not to mislead people, even by omission.

[js1138]

I've purchased a number of high school biology textbooks at garage sales recently, some going back to 1960.

All of them engage in critical analysis. The one from 1960 devotes 60 pages to the elements of evolution, starting with the basics of genetics and leading up to the evidences for evolution.

What textbook doesn't analyze the evidence for scientific theories?

[Leatherneck_MT]

It has always amazed me how evolutionists will poo poo any idea other than their own, up to and including, making their theory the only one taught in schools.

Hopefully now there will be a more critical analysis of it and other theories.

[ahayes]

That reconstruction was published in 1994 before the rest of the skeleton was found. I don't know that a drawing of the 80% complete skeleton has been published (perhaps in the German article from 1996, but I don't have access to it).

[ahayes]

If you want it right from the horse's mouth, here's Thewissen's page on Ambulocetus, with a similar unshaded reconstruction drawing and a photograph of the recovered skeleton below. You can see that most of the spine is present, the ribcage is present, the pelvis is present, and a hindlimb and most of a forelimb are present. Thewissen notes his 1994 and 1996 papers, mentioning that the 1996 paper contains more information about the skeleton than the 1994 one.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Thanks. I think. The works published on AiG are still too new not to account for this. I'm still waiting for a response. All the hollering and protest everyone is doing won't speed anything along.