Posted on 10/18/2003 4:43:10 AM PDT by Zender500
Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed.
Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose. Unfortunately, that's just what might happen in Minnesota.
Although many people view Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation, others have begun questioning parts of this theory.
For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community, the statement has been supported by Nobel Prize nominee Fritz Schaeffer, Smithsonian Institution molecular biologist Richard Sternberg and Stanley Salthe, author of "Evolutionary Biology."
Minnesota is setting new content standards for K-12 science education. Committees have written a draft of these standards and, along with Education Commissioner Cheri Yecke, are inviting feedback from people like you at public hearings and through e-mail letters. (See The Minnesota Department of Education for information and a copy of the standards.)
I commend the standards committee for its emphasis on knowledge and the scientific method. However, I'm concerned that some citizens and committee members want Darwinian evolution taught as undisputed fact while prohibiting any critical analysis of this and other scientific theories. This is no less biased than those who do not want evolution mentioned at all. History reveals how such suppression of data actually hinders science, while honest inquiry promotes it.
For example, the Earth-centered theory of the solar system proposed by Ptolemy in the first century was upheld as absolute truth for 1,500 years. Unfortunately, the church suppressed the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and others who challenged this theory with scientific evidence. Isaac Newton's publication about gravity and the sun-centered theory in 1687 finally overcame this bias and exposed the Earth-centered theory as dogma, not scientific fact.
Faith in God influenced these latter four scientists' pursuit of scientific discovery, so their conflict was not with religion but rather with bias against other theories. Those who would forbid any challenges to Darwinian theory are displaying this same kind of partiality.
Instead of answering these challenges with evidence that supports their theory, some defenders of "evolution-only" are taking another tactic — accusing all critics of trying to bring religion into the classroom. However, critical scientific analysis of Darwinian evolution is not religion, and exploration of all the facts should be encouraged.
Such exploration exemplifies the scientific method, which begins with observation and leads to a hypothesis (an educated guess that tries to explain the observation). This hypothesis is then tested, and if test results contradict the hypothesis, it is discarded or revised. A hypothesis that has been tested and supported by large amounts of data becomes a theory. A theory that withstands rigorous testing by independent scientists over time eventually becomes a scientific law.
All theories and even scientific laws must be tentative. For example, who would have thought Newton's Laws could ever be contradicted? Yet, Einstein and other scientists found that these laws could not explain certain complex problems.
Quantum mechanics became the new guiding principle, though Newton's Laws are sufficiently accurate for most aspects of daily activity.
The scientific method that has been so instrumental in advancing science requires that all scientific theories and even scientific laws at least be open to further testing. We should not be afraid to question and analyze scientific evidence; data that is valid will stand the tests.
We have the opportunity to set responsible and rigorous standards for science education in Minnesota. We should help students practice the scientific method in all areas of science, including the study of evolution — let's not encourage them to violate it.
Obviously, flaws or contradictions in the theory of evolution should be investigated, as they should in any scientific theory. The scientific method demands that, if observations and experimentation do not support current hypothesis, then the theory should be reexamined.
However, since creationism is by definition NOT scientific in nature, it still should not be taught as such. It takes the scientific method and upends it...taking observations and forcing them to fit the theory. The theory itself is never questioned or modified.
This writer are illiterate.
"Such exploration exemplifies the scientific method, which begins with observation and leads to a hypothesis (an educated guess that tries to explain the observation). This hypothesis is then tested, and if test results contradict the hypothesis, it is discarded or revised. A hypothesis that has been tested and supported by large amounts of data becomes a theory. A theory that withstands rigorous testing by independent scientists over time eventually becomes a scientific law."
It is a basic principle of all scientific inquiry that many creationists ignore completely. Darwinian theory has, in fact, been modified and adjusted over the years as new evidence emerged. It is far from the dogmatic theory implied.
I are often guilty of a similar solecism when I make media a singular noun with a verb to match.
But to the point: What's to be made of the honest questions within the (apparently evolutionary) community?
. . .For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community, the statement has been supported by Nobel Prize nominee Fritz Schaeffer, Smithsonian Institution molecular biologist Richard Sternberg and Stanley Salthe, author of "Evolutionary Biology."
Well, I'm gonna be all pedantic and quibblish.
I reject entirely the idea that something cannot be scientific "by definition". As I have said many times, the nature of science is determined by the content of science. If a genuinely successful and useful theory fails to meet some defining criteria of what is supposed to constitute an acceptable scientific theory, then the criteria will be changed and the theory retained. This has happened over and over again in the history of science.
The only reason that creationism should not be taught is that it is not, in fact, part of the content of science (as can be determined objectively by consulting the professional literature). It may be interesting to opine about whether creationism could be scientific, or whether that is impossible for some reason or another, but this is ultimately superfluous. There either is, or there is not, some creationistic theory that "works," that is useful to working scientist pursuing their research projects.
At present there is not such a theory. I can't imagine that there ever will be such a theory. But if I'm wrong, and some genuinely successful creationistic theory should emerge, and be actually (not just as a pretence) utilized and implicated in ongoing research by working scientists, then fine. And if that should ever happen, then the theory WILL be taught in the public schools, simply because it will in fact be a part of science. That's how this all works.
It takes the scientific method and upends it...taking observations and forcing them to fit the theory.
Yes. Granted that this is how it works out, so far, as a sociological fact. For instance every creationist organization that I know of has a "statement of faith," and these invariably commit members a priori to at least some scientific (as well as theological) conclusions. However should some genuinely successful creationistic theory emerge (however unlikely that may be) then it would not require such twisted and ideologically narrow support.
The theory itself is never questioned or modified.
This just isn't true. First of all there is no "theory" of creationism. At best there are scenarios and narratives on the one hand, or vacuous sub-theoretical generalizations on the other; and they are multiple. Different flavors of creationism often differ from each other as dramatically as they each differ from mainstream scientific accounts.
Secondly, modifications do occur. It may not always be for the right reasons. For instance it may have to do with a balancing act between "how much bible can we work in" versus "how much conventional science do we have to jettison," but changes do occur. For instance it used to be dogma at the Institute for Creation Research that "entropy" began with the fall of man (after Adam ate the apple). ICR president Henry Morris insisted on this idea, but other creationists said this was nonsense, and the idea was quietly dropped when Morris retired. The "vapor canopy" theory also used to be all the rage among YECs, but it too has fallen into disrepute among most. (This is mainly due, I think, to the problem with the ocean boiling heat that would be released when the vapor becomes liquid. For whatever reason, creationists don't want to invoke a miracle here.)
Although, IIRC, there was a similar argument during the Scopes trial when William Jennings Bryan positively refused to be a mammal. Some wag pointed out that he had a point since the defense had defined mammals as having hair and producing milk from their mammay glands, whereas Bryan was bald and never been known to nurse his young.
Um, not quite. If it blastulates, it's designated or defined as an animal. The very concept of "animal" is a convenience of the human need for classification, the compulsion for which is at the root of the need to fit data to theory.
Day in and day out for many, many years now, the theory of evolution has been and is tested in laboratories and field studies throughout the world. If there is a scientific alternative, I haven't heard of it.
I'm skeptical of the whole article.
Human beings are one of many species of animals. You know this, why be absurd about it?
If they all were committed and restrained, the world's mental health would improve dramatically.
Where did your mommie and daddy get you...from a store? You didn't come from the womb since that's a mammalian (an animal) structure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.