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.
Evolution, being a scientific theory, can be disproven. In its current form it probably will be disproven. You cannot disprove creationism because there is no empirical evidence for it or against it. Creationism takes many forms ranging from fundamentalist christian to deist creationism. There is no evidence at all to support Christian Creationism however there is some evidence to support Deist creationism.
But, put to put it simply. There is absolutely no proof in favor of young earth, biblical creationism. It thus has far less of a place in our schools than evolution. All that needs to be said about evolution is that there is no conclusive for or against. Just because we haven't found transition skeletons doesn't mean they don't exist. That means they may also not exist.
But I am not a biologist. The form of science that I am into should be evident by my username. I will show you evidence for evolution when you can present me with any solid empirical evidence that shows that the God of Abraham created the Earth in 6 days and made adam from dirt.
Not true, on a couple of levels.
1) It is a repeated fact that no Cambrian rocks have ever contained a mammal fossil, etc, etc. Every dig has the possibility of finding one, but it's never happened.
2) Another sort of repeated result comes from genetics. For example, the theory predicts that if a transposon is found in the genome of both a cow and a whale, it will also be found in the genome of a hippo. Or if one is found in both chimps and orangutangs, it will also be found in people and gorillas. This sort of observation has been repeated hundreds, if not thousands, of times. The only known explanation is evolution.
To V-A:
But that's not something that you can reproduce in a lab; hence, the difference between physical and historical sciences. Your posts, therefore, are "repeatedly" attacking a straw man.
But to answer them:
1) Your perception that the fossil record is some kind of neat proof of evolution is not exactly true. The fact is that there are a number of discontinuities that present problems for evolution as it is currently taught in our schools.
2) You might want to do some reading on genetics. It turns out that the genetic record doesn't match up with the fossil, as Michael Denton and others have known and pointed out for decades.
To jennyp:
You may want to read the above link. The last quote discusses the problem that the Punk-Eeek model has always had:
"The required rapidity of the change implies either a few large steps or many and exceedingly rapid smaller ones. Large steps are tantamount to saltations and raise the problems of fitness barriers; small steps must be numerous and entail the problems discussed under microevolution. The periods of stasis raise the possibility that the lineage would enter the fossil record, and we reiterate that we can identify none of the postulated intermediate forms. Finally, the large numbers of species that must be generated so as to form a pool from which the successful lineage is selected are nowhere to be found. We conclude that the probability that species selection is a general solution to the origin of higher taxa is not great, and that neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." (p. 96)Now, given that the evolutionists themselves cannot agree on a PE model to explain away the lack of transitional fossils, don't you think that our schools should present this problem honestly to our children instead of pretending that it doesn't exist?Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. (1985)
"Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record"
Development as an Evolutionary Process
To donh:
Certainly. Go read up on all the fun scientists have been having trying to get stable proteins to form without designing them. They can get a couple, but the same processes that create them destroy them just as easily. And that's just the protiens, not full life. You can click here for some of the details if you'd like.
But let's turn this around. Perhaps you would like to show me the evidence that life does, in fact, generate spontaniously. Heck, even many of the missionaries of evolution on this forum will admit that abiogenesis is a major problem.
And if you can't, if numerous experiements have shown that we cannot get life to generate spontaniously, shouldn't our schools emphasize that to our kids when teaching the theory of evolution as the explanation for life?
To PatrickHenry:
Hi there! Sorry I haven't been around. My schedule has precluded me doing more than hit-and-run posts for the most part, and it takes a lot more than that to cross swords with you (more like hours and hours of reading and research). :^) If I'm too brief now, I apologize; it's been a long day, and I've got miles to go before I sleep, so to speak.
I never argued that origin-of-life studies (sorry, evolution is a theory that crosses several sciences, not a science unto itself, any more than the theory of relativity is a science) weren't science. I was just making the point about the different sciences and how they are approached.
You are aware, of course, that evolution has already made a number of predictions that fell through. Darwin held that his theory would survive or fall on whether the transitional fossils were found. They weren't, and the entire PE theory is an attempt to explain away the lack of evidence not an extrapolation of the evidence. I've also never seen a falsifiable experiment for PE ever presented, but as the quote I gave to jennyp shows, there's far from a consensus among scientists that PE is true.
That's kind of a side-note to the real point of this thread, however. I think that in your zeal to defend naturalistic evolution that you are missing the real issue. These aren't just unsolved problems, these are problems that cannot be answered by anything close to what is taught in our public schools as evolution. The fact that there are these gigantic holes in the theory is withheld from your average high school student (I know; I was one of them) and the long-ago debunked "pepper moth" photos are still shown in the textbooks as a "proof," frankly, offends me. Is this kind of one-sided editing what we really want to "challenge" our kids with? In the light that an increasing number of scientists are expressing reservations and an alternative view (ID), shouldn't our kids be told the whole truth from the first, rather than have certain information filtered from them to prop up naturalistic evolution in their minds?
To Dimensio:
I said naturalistic, not nihilistic. But in any case, when only one theory is taught to our kids, and the very existence of an Intellegent Design movement which is growing and gaining support among scientists is withheld, it amounts to a press to teach a single dogma.
Shouldn't we instead teach our kids that there is in fact a scientific (and not theological) debate occurring, and give them all the facts rather than attempting to lock them into just one mode of thought?
I can't respond to all your points (it's time, not the substance), but I'll take this stuff on. You're probably correct as far as I know about disproving PE. However, it does provide a plausable explanation for the relatively small number of transitionals, compared to species in stasis. And there are transitionals, aren't there. A goodly number of them, actually.
Failed predictions? You gotta be kidding. Here's an old post of mine, one which I later converted into a vanity thread:
A provocative question that Junior recently directed to a creationist: "Biblical prophesies notwithstanding, what biological predictions does creationism make?" The creationist didn't respond, but I do, as follows:I can think of a few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:
1. There should be no transitional species.I call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.2. There are most certainly no pre-human (but still humanoid) species.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth. This isn't a direct prediction, but it's inferred by the concept of special creation. There is no reason at all for each to be so similar to the others in their molecular structure. For example, there's no creationist reason why a lion can eat animals from all over the globe.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.
In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 - - Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.
You might want to get your heater fixed.
No, they do not have to explain the origin of life. They have to explain what they know, not what they do not know. To explain what they do not know is completely against what science is all about and it demeans and degrades the work of real scientists who work hard to discover the truth, not make it up.
Further, evolution does not explain the origin of life anyway. It is abiogenesis which tries to do that and it has been proven to be totally impossible by modern science. In fact that is why Thomas Huxley some years after Pasteur did his famous experiment showing that life did not arise from dead matter divorced the theory of evolution from the origin of life. So you are completely wrong.
Are you making the pagan assertion that God looks like a male human?
No and you know that. Looks is not what differentiates man from chimp - that is small compared to the important part of man - the will, the intelligence, the moral ability of man, it is in that in which man resembles God - in his ability to create, determine, and direct his own life - for good or evil.
But they're always true. There have never been any counter examples found
Your perception that the fossil record is some kind of neat proof of evolution is not exactly true...
All I said was that there has never been a rock that contains, for example, both trilobites and rabbits. Your link provides no such examples. IMO, this constitutes disproof of young-earth-flood hypotheses (the "hydrodynamic sorting", "mammals ran faster", etc, foollishnesses are utterly ad-hoc), but is, of course, totally combatible with standard biology.
You might want to do some reading on genetics. It turns out that the genetic record doesn't match up with the fossil, as Michael Denton and others have known and pointed out for decades.
Has he found any retroposons that are in both orangutangs and chimps, but not people and gorillas? Until then, we'll have to stick to the common sense explanation for this observed law of nature, namely that any common ancestor of chimps and orangutangs is also an ancestor of people and gorillas.
The pseudogenes, retroposons, etc, found in genomes can be considered fossils preserved in dna rather than rocks.
You are aware, of course, that evolution has already made a number of predictions that fell through.
In stark contrast to ID, which is incapable of making any predictions.
...the very existence of an Intellegent Design movement which is growing and gaining support among scientists...
Evidence for this, please. You wouldn't want teachers lying to the students about this 'movement', would you?
That's not true at all! Hegel's philosophical framework was all about an inexhorable unfolding of a predictable (teleological) process. Darwin's theory never made any claims for an overall direction of evolution, except that each species would become better suited to its environment.
I think Hegelianism would produce a biological theory that looks more like the Scala Naturae, which looks like a ladder where new species appear on a "higher rung" than the one before. This is more like what Haeckel was arguing for. Interestingly, Haeckel was a German. Perhaps his theories were influenced by Hegel. Stultis, do you know?
That's not true at all! Hegel's philosophical framework was all about an inexhorable unfolding of a predictable (teleological) process. Darwin's theory never made any claims for an overall direction of evolution
Yeah, I don't think Darwin even read Hegel. Darwin read any number of works on the philosophy of science (off the top of my head this would include works by Whewell, Paley, Comte, and others) and he read moral philosophy (Paley again, at Cambridge, but also stuff read later for the anthropological angle) and also works of a philosophical bent in political economy (i.e. economics) and other "practical" subjects, but he had no interest in formal philosophy per se.
"Pure" philosophy didn't appeal to him. Darwin was a "hypothetical-deductive" thinker. He felt deductions should follow from some theoretical proposal, relating it to available evidence and suggesting further observations or experiments as tests of the theory. (Facts are only important, he once said, "insofar as they can be shown to argue for or against some theory.") He was suspicious of "pure deduction" that was disconnected from empirical hypothesis at one end, and from empirical data at the other.
Here's something Darwin wrote concerning the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. I suspect he might have had something roughly similar to say about Hegel had he read him and found occassion to comment:
After reading any of his books, I generally feel enthusiastic admiration for his transcedental talents... Nonetheless, I am not conscious of having profited in my own work from Spencer's writings. His deductive manner of treating every subject is wholly opposed to my own frame of mind. His conclusions never convince me; and over and over again I have said to myself, after reading one of his discussions, -- "Here would be a fine subject for half-a-dozen years' work". His fundamental generalisations (which have been compared in importance by some persons with Newton's laws!) -- which I daresay may be very valuable under a philosophical point of view, are of such a nature that they do not seem to me to be of any strictly scientific use. They partake more of the nature of definitions than of laws of nature. They do not aid one in predicting what will happen in any particular case. Anyhow they have not been of any use to me.~~~Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Nora Barlow ed., 1958, pg 109.
Darwin and Spencer shared some friends, I believe, and Darwin was complementary of Spencer publicly. (Darwin was a genial type who would find something nice to say about nearly anyone. You sometimes have to pay attention to what he doesn't say to discern his real opinion.) The quote is from Darwin's autobiography, which he wrote as a private family document. I believe this passage was cut from the version of the autobiography published by Darwin's son Francis after Charles died, and only restored in the version Nora Barlow published in the 1950's.
Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, through continuous differentiations and integrations; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation.
This was parodied by the mathematician Thomas Penyngton Kirkman (often attributed to William James who quoted it) as follows:
Evolution is a change from a nohowish, untalkaboutable all-alikeness, to a somehowish and in-general-talkaboutable not-all-alikeness, by continuous somethingelseifications and sticktogetherations.
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.