Why We Must Teach Evolution in the Science Classroom

Red Orbit ^ | Saturday, 2 August 2008 | Laura Lorentzen

[Soliton]

don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."

Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.

[Dog Gone]

From the obtuse reactions, it seems you hit a very raw and exposed nerve.

Curious thinking. If I spread a vicious and false smear of an entire group of people, and the objections they make to it are not to my liking, how does that somehow vindicate what I said or prove it more credible?

[Texas Songwriter]

Yes, there are other models. If I read your post correctly you present the IDEA of multi-universes that create baby universes. I like the next statement you make...."If we are part of a bigger multiverse, there is no maximal-entropy equilibrium state and entropy is produced via cration of universes like our own." ,

"If we....." Let us examine this assertion you make...You disgorge Einsteins theory of General Relativity, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the findings of Penzias and Wilson (also Nobel Laureates), Hubbell, the findings of COBE. You have pretty-much dismissed all of physics and astrophysics. What do you leave us to believe? In 2003 NASA received imagery from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe confirming the findings of COBE of background radeation ripples (for which Wilson and Penzias received the Nobel). COBE revealed so much clarity of evidence of an original explosion that George Smoot, the project leader, announced the "shocking findings to to world." He said, "If you are religious, it's like looking into the face of God." Michael Turner, Chicago University astrophysicist said, "The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology." Stephen Hawking called the finding "the most important discover;y of the century, if not of all time." Smoot called the findings the "matching marks form the creation of the universe, and the fingerprints of the maker." (And he is an atheist).

But hey....lets go with Multiuniverses and baby universes propounded by Soliton. To heck with all those other guys.

You are not having a serious conversation with me. Please don't make me take my ball home. I like to talk about this stuff.

[beefree]

Forgive me if I missed it in the thread, what are your scientific credentials?

[Soliton]

Electrical engineer and long time student of evolution and the Bible.

[Soliton]

Those were not my words. I provided a link. I simply said there was some interesting work being done in the area of multiverses.

Thanks for the derision however.

[OriginalIntent]

The FR hardcore evolutionists worship Big Government at its very worst (public school monopoly) but claim libertarianism as a convenient, dishonest excuse for the extreme moral liberalism they spew on this conservative forum.

I think its pretty clear as to the people OL was referring to. He used the term "hardcore evolutionists" not as just any evolutionist, but as those "hardcore evolutionists" who claim to be for small government to justify their liberal [social?] stands, yet stand in great support for and are always talking about the public school system which is a huge, liberal, coercive government monstrosity. Small government? Hah. He is showing the hypocrisy which may reveal the true motives of those he is targetting.

[beefree]

Bravo. There is so much research out there that should bring current evolution model under intense scrutiny and serious debate. Ya won’t hear much on network tv about these types of findings.

[mrjesse]

I'll take a stab at that. It's because truth always wins. It can be buried or denied successfully for awhile, but truth wins.

And it's much easier to defend than falsehoods.

So why wouldn't it be the best policy for anyone regardless of religious belief?

Truth may always win, but it doesn't always get people what they want. Look around - people are lying all the time - even under oath these days! Why? Because they think that it will get them their goal better.

It well may be true that always telling the truth is a good policy because most of the time it is the best way to accomplish one's goal -- but it isn't always the best way to accomplish one's goal! (By the way, clever usage of 'policy' which is exceptable rather then "always" which implies no exceptions.)

Thus, without an outside reason to always tell even when it doesn't accomplish one's goal there is no reason for the atheist to tell the truth when it doesn't accomplish their goal.

-Jesse

[csense]

bookmark

[Texas Songwriter]

Thanks for the derision however.

I am not big into derision, but some of the atheists are really rude to the creationists. I was a little hard on you, but I do not delight in being mean and insolent. I thought you might think about that the next time you feel like being rude to "crevos". We have feelings to. I appologize if I was too assertive, seasoned with cynicism.

BUT, my questions stand, and are as valid, as if I have been nice.

By the way, I did paruse your other reference link "The RNA World". As an engineer you would not build a building with the laxaty of science discussed in that report. I quote..."RNA World referred to an Hyopthetical stage in the origin of life on earth". He goes on to say that he discovered that in primitive systems RNA could catalyze phosphodiesterase bonds. He says other RNA's have been found to cleave peptidyl transferase center of bacterial 50S ribosomal subunits containing RNA without protein. He says in-vitro RNA can have many catalytic functions.

Then he says, "On further reflection many doubts have been raised about whether or not the original genetic/catalytic material could have been RNA as we we know today.

The assumptions made in this paper is so far beyond anything I was allowed in my days in graduate school that it boggles my mind that it would even be published.

The best I can say for this article is they need to keep looking underneath the rocks, because they have nothing, NOTHING, here.

I will review your other 'scientific' link, just to be fair.

[Soliton]

I referred to it as an hypothesis.

I have never used the word “crevo”

[vpintheak]

Blantantly ignorant and pathetic lie! If any of you darwinites can prove that statement in the article true, I will give you a cookie.

[Soliton]

which statement?

[Texas Songwriter]

I have never used the word “crevo”

I have never seen you write "crevo", but my point was that vitriol is so often put out there. If you go back and dispassionately look at your posts 39, 54, 62, 87, 89, 108, 132, you will see a little vitriol. I will say of the atheists/evolutions posting remarks you are a little more 'kind' than most.

But, in all of my other posts to you you have, so far, refused to answer my questions. Those are questions you need to answer. It is important for you that you answer them, if only to yourself.

I mean no disrespect in any way, and if my words cut too sharply, that was not my hope in the end, but my method.

[Soliton]

If you go back and dispassionately look at your posts 39, 54, 62, 87, 89, 108, 132, you will see a little vitriol. I will say of the atheists/evolutions posting remarks you are a little more 'kind' than most.

My disdain is for people who are dishonest debaters, not believers.

[Texas Songwriter]

Well, you are smarter and better than that.

[Dog Gone]

"hardcore evolutionists" who claim to be for small government to justify their liberal [social?] stands, yet stand in great support for and are always talking about the public school system which is a huge, liberal, coercive government monstrosity.

Well, again, you can't necessarily equate a belief in evolution with liberal social views. At most, you can equate it with those who do not accept a strict literal interpetation of the Old Testament account of Creation, but that has nothing to do with politics or whether the government should enforce the teaching of one curriculum over another.

I don't think it's the federal government's responsibility to get involved in schools at all, since the Constitution nowhere gives it that power. That probably is a small libertarian view, but it also allows that local schools could teach creation or alien seed pods or whatever they want. I think it's up to each state to decide what mush they want to serve.

But that's currently not the law, and probably never will be. Once we surrender local control to the federal government, we never get it back.

My point is that there are plenty of conservative folks who are convinced of evolution, and it clouds the discussion to paint them as something else when it's just not true.

[Coyoteman]

Actually "crevo" is just an abbreviation for "creation and evolution," referring to the threads where creationists and evolutionists carry on these discussions.

There is no other implication that I know of. It is certainly not a derogatory term.

[Dog Gone]

Thus, without an outside reason to always tell even when it doesn't accomplish one's goal there is no reason for the atheist to tell the truth when it doesn't accomplish their goal.

First of all, honesty is always the best policy, but some deflecting of it at times is probably smarter.

"Does this dress make me look fat?" from your wife would best not be answered, "No, your fat makes you look fat."

Everyone always says or does what he/she thinks is the best decision at the time to further whatever goal they have. It can't be otherwise.

But there's an underlying assumption in your position which I don't think is correct, and that is that atheists are incapable of being moral or having an internal code of conduct defining right from wrong.

An atheist can certainly agree with what Jesus said about doing unto others as you would want them to treat you without buying into the concept of heaven or an eternal lake of fire for the wicked.

There is just way too much demonizing of people who disagree on one matter and deciding that they must be evil on all other matters, as well.

[OriginalIntent]

I don't think it's the federal government's responsibility to get involved in schools at all,...

I agree with that.

Liberals and their evolutionist allies (not all) however are extremely zealous concerning centralized, top-down control of public schools and bring the big government public school trump card into every thread.

It is almost their ultimate pat hand, just short of a liberal judicial straight flush.