Both extremes wrong in evolution debate

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 10/17/03 | Jean Swenson

[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.

[Dimensio]

A view of reality that rejects any possibility of creative intelligence is de facto a way of seeing the world, viewing reality and is itself a faith committment.

I don't know of any scientific theory presented that "rejects any possibility of creative intelligence".

[Dimensio]

. I really do believe we are not animals, nor tulip bulbs, we are humans and there are animals, the many differences are immense.

Well, then, you should have no difficulty listing a few differences between "humans" and "animals" -- specific biological traits that distinguish the two that don't result in your deviating from the standard definitions of "human" and "animal". Thus far you've done nothing more than jump up and down and shout "No they aren't!"

Let me throw this out. in 5 billion years, did life accidently happen in the primordal ooze just once and all life accidently mutated and adapted over and over?

What does this have to do with whether or not humans are animals?

Did life happen accidently twice? 20 times?

Unknown. What's your point? What does this have to do with whether humans are animals?

Could it accidently happen today?

There are varying hypothesis on the ultimate origins of life, but many of them rely on conditions on earth not present today (geologic and atmospheric conditions), so the general consensus is that while it's possible, it's not likely -- at least, not as likely as it used to be.

Once again, what does this have to do with your argument that humans are not animals?

A human is much more complex than a automobile, or a computer

Non-sequitur.

if we already did not know it was manufactured (close one, I almost said created!)would it be a logical arguement to poster that it just happened by accident.

Probably not. Are you saying that complexity requires design? If so, please support this assertion after you explain what any of this has to do with your contesting of the definition of humans as "animals".

[Dimensio]

If not, then present the alternative.

Don't fall into that trap. Disproving "Darwinian evolution" would not prove anything other than that "Darwinian evolution" is false. Such a disproof could not be used as evidence for any other origins hypothesis -- despite the claims of some Creationists who have asserted that if evolution is false, Biblical Creation must be true.

[Dimensio]

Geez, that's an incomprehensibly big number ;)

[PatrickHenry]

... an incomprehensibly big number

So says the most brilliant person on the internet. I think it's supposed to be the precise odds for the appearance of life on earth.

[Nebullis]

Disproving "Darwinian evolution" would not prove anything other than that "Darwinian evolution" is false.

The theory of evolution is not a true or false proposition. Nor is it math where one counter-example is enough to sink a proof. It's an explanation for a body of data. How do you disprove something like that? At most you can point to something that is not sufficiently explained by the theory and come up with something that better explains it. And then you have to make sure that all the other data support the new explanation.

[HankReardon]

There is no argument, animals are animals and humans are humans. Look around, do you see animals driving cars, reading and writing books, curing diseases, conteplating the why's and the why nots, is there a God? Is there not a God? Animals do not do this. Humans were never anything other than humans. "Keep the change, ya'filthy animal!"

[Dimensio]

There is no argument, animals are animals and humans are humans.

That's not an explanation, that's a restating of your original position that you have yet to demonstrate as true.

Look around, do you see animals driving cars, reading and writing books, curing diseases, conteplating the why's and the why nots, is there a God?

Yes. The only animals that I see doing such things are humans, though. Sorry, but the classification of "animal" does not include "does not drive cars, read or write books, cure disease and contemplating the whys and why nots, etc.

Animals do not do this. Humans were never anything other than humans.

Animals do this because humans are animals and humans do this. You're just trying to switch around the definition of "animal" because you want humans to be "special" and given a classification of their own. Sorry, biological classifications are not made based upon what makes you feel good. If you are insisting that a sixth life classification be made, you will need better justification than "we contemplate!"

[Rocky]

"Data, not your opinion or mine, on a subject is the only thing that matters in science. There is your "truth" and then there is that truth which can be objectively observed."

You will not find an experiment to test God's existence. He is not a subject of your experiments. If He were, then you would be in control. You're not. Data may be the only thing meaningful in science, but that limits what science can do. You are looking for something where it can't be found. Don't be too proud of any answers which you devise on that basis - they are all wrong.

I have nothing against science, when it's properly applied. The idea, however, that the only things worthwhile come from scientific investigation, is flat wrong. And the idea that scientific methods can explain the origin of the universe and of life - well, that's wrong, too. So is the idea that a religious person necessarily has disdain for science. I don't. I just recognize its limits.

Investigate, explore - these are things that we will always do. Proclaim scientific theories dogmatically, while blasting religious people for having their own dogmatic beliefs - well, that's human nature, too. But it isn't any better for being done in the name of Science.

[Dimensio]

You will not find an experiment to test God's existence. He is not a subject of your experiments. If He were, then you would be in control.

I can conduct tests for gravity, but that hardly puts me in control of it.

[CodeMonkey]

He were, then you would be in control.

Not necessarily. I agree that it is probably impossible to "observe God" in the sense that most people would take that to mean from our position in this universe. That does remind me of a Dean Koontz book (name escapes me) that featured an organization dedicated to finding the "interface to the infinite" which is essentially a way to crack open the universe's structure and observe God through the rift.

Proclaim scientific theories dogmatically, while blasting religious people for having their own dogmatic beliefs - well, that's human nature, too. But it isn't any better for being done in the name of Science.

This isn't about blasting religious people, it is about ensuring the separation of religion and science. I'm actually a form of creationist because I believe in a variation of the Deist view of the universe. Yet I do not believe that creationism should be taught in a biology class. It isn't science. We can't know what preceded the big bang, but that doesn't stop us from viewing that as the point in which God created the universe and its structure.

It all depends on whether you believe in God-as-Monarch or God-as-Engineer. I have always disdained the former as it is too humanized for me. God-as-Engineer makes more sense because it just explains why things are the way they are to me. Viewing the universe as a machine just makes sense.

[HankReardon]

WOW! Man made up the classifications of animals, okay. Of course man has the biological make up of animals. In order to live we breathe, we eat, we defecate. but come on! Do you want to believe man is merely just another species of animal? I believe what the elephant man (John Merick?) said applies to us all, " I am not an animal!" One of the many things that makes man NOT merely another species of animal is man has the knowledge of good and evil. Sorry, you won't find that in your science books, you're being led, my friend. Open your mind. It's just the way I am, it rankles me to hear my sainted mother is just as much an animal as the cow in field, I'm funny that way. Good luck with that animal thing. Your human friend, Hank

[HankReardon]

Hey all, I do love this topic, very interesting.

[HankReardon]

Let me throw this out there. Animals slowly developed defenses against predators so their species would survive. I am told to believe these defenses take a very long time to develope. I cannot help but wonder why wouldn't the predators kill them off in the meantime? I mean, "It's not an armoured plate yet, it's hard skin, wait 50,000 years, you won't eat me then!" or " I can't really fly yet, but you just wait 100,000 years, you won't catch me then!"

[Dimensio]

Do you want to believe man is merely just another species of animal?

Why do you ask such a strange question? What I "want" is irrelevant. Humans cannot be classified as any other form of life than "animal". Humans only match the definitions of kingdom Animalia, no other kingdom.

I believe what the elephant man (John Merick?) said applies to us all, " I am not an animal!"

We're speaking of scientific classifications, not layman usage. By scientific classification, humans are animals. Just because you don't like it is not reason to throw out established scientific definitions -- science isn't about making you feel special.

One of the many things that makes man NOT merely another species of animal is man has the knowledge of good and evil.

You mean classification of things as "good" and "evil", but once again there's nothing in the scientific classification of "animal" that exlcudes biological life forms that do such a thing.

Sorry, you won't find that in your science books

Of course not, because it's irrelevant to the definition of "animal" and the classification of humans as animals.

. Open your mind.

This does not advance your argument.

It's just the way I am, it rankles me to hear my sainted mother is just as much an animal as the cow in field

Your mother is not only an animal, but she's also a mammal, just like the cows in the fields. So am I. We're all carbon-based life forms, too, just like fungus. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that there are general terms that apply equally to your mother and cows, but scientific classifications weren't made to make you feel good. Humans are animals, they're part of kingdom Animalia. Yes, there are traits that seperate humans from every other animal out there. That's why we're called "humans". That does not change the fact that we are still animals.

[Dimensio]

I am told to believe these defenses take a very long time to develope. I cannot help but wonder why wouldn't the predators kill them off in the meantime?

This tells of a lack of understanding of the evolution of defensive traits. Defensive traits evolved because as the creatures started to develop them, they had a survival advantage over other creatures without them. As such, they were less likely to be killed off by predators. That they survived as long as they did means that they were able to avoid extinction, not that they were able to completely avoid being killed by predators at all.

[HankReardon]

Yeah, good luck with that animal thing.

[Dimensio]

Yeah, good luck with that animal thing.

I take it that you don't actually have arguments of substance? Just assertions on what you don't like?

[Junior]

Humans are humans, not animals, never were. How ridiculous.

Humans must therefore be vegetables or minerals, right? Humans are animals, in a scientific sense. We share oodles of similarities with mammalia (humans are mammals, and mammals are, by definition, animals), and even more similarities with primates. That you refuse to accept this does not falsify it in any manner whatsoever.

[HankReardon]

Okay, you're right I have no agrument for it. But by God, I know people are net MERELY animals, we are much, Much more!