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.

[PatrickHenry]

Physical science lends itself to experimentation, where historical science depends on an interpretation of an ever-increasing body of evidence that cannot be reproduced in the lab.

Buggman! Long time no see!

You're quite correct about the distinction between experimental and historical sciences. But they're both sciences. The historical sciences (astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, cosmology, and of course, evolution) use presently available and verifiable evidence to discover a past which can't be re-created. Evolution makes predictions -- about the kinds of fossils that will be found, etc. Evolution is falsifiable -- if out-of-sequence creatures are discovered the game's over. So it's a science.

The question is, do we tell our children about this ongoing debate honestly, or do we try to lock them into one viewpoint or another by allowing only one to be taught in schools and elimiating the conflicting data? I vote for honesty.

I'm really puzzled by your reference to "the conflicting data." I'm not aware of anything at all that contradicts the theory of evolution. Could you give us something specific?

[carlo3b]

However, one feature of the Left is that they will never, never abandon one of their pet positions as long as there are votes and class warfare to be had.

BINGO! Those despicable BA$TARD$

[carlo3b]

OK... Pass the peas.. :)

[DannyTN]

...data that is valid will stand the tests.

This writer are illiterate.

Actually, in this case, I think it's you that's illiterate. "Data" can be singular or plural.

Data can also be valid or false. And we have seen false data before from the evolutionist's camp.

[carlo3b]

Are you going to exclude any other creation "theories" in favor of your own favorite? If so, why?

Yes! I can do whatever I want, and I am kicking out all other "theories",(?) arbitrary, and capriciously, and without prejudice, because I can, it's my post!. . . :)

[Qwinn]

I know you asked Buggman, but I'll assume it's okay to point out the fact that he already answered you.

"I'm really puzzled by your reference to "the conflicting data." I'm not aware of anything at all that contradicts the theory of evolution. Could you give us something specific?"

He already did.

"We've discovered that the so-called "simple" cell isn't, and that it requires millions of very carefully balanced parts and interactions to function, which could not have arised by common chance. Irreducible complexity. We have a derth of transitional forms in the fossil records, when according to evolution we should have almost nothing but transitional forms--that is, we see stable species going along virtually unchanged for millions of years, not slow changes over time."

This is indeed data that conflicts with the theory of evolution.

Qwinn

[PatrickHenry]

From Buggman:

"We've discovered that the so-called "simple" cell isn't, and that it requires millions of very carefully balanced parts and interactions to function, which could not have arised by common chance. Irreducible complexity. We have a derth of transitional forms in the fossil records, when according to evolution we should have almost nothing but transitional forms--that is, we see stable species going along virtually unchanged for millions of years, not slow changes over time."

This is indeed data that conflicts with the theory of evolution.

Well, no. Buggman has pointed out unsolved problems (complexity of cell structure), for which I have no answers today. That's a feature of every science. But it's not a conflict. A genuine conflict would be the discovery of something that, if true, would mean that evolution couldn't be true. So far, that kind of evidence hasn't been found. (DNA, when discovered, was probably the last time such a window was open, but it turns out that the genetic histories revealed by DNA study are entirely consistent with evolution theory.)

As for the alleged "derth" of transitional forms, I don't see the conflict. The existence of any transitional form is most definitely a conflict -- with creationism. But merely because we haven't yet found everything we'd like doesn't create any conflict at all. Besides, no matter how many transitionals get discovered (and new ones pop up from time to time), the creationists never change their tune. So the number of transitionals is truly irrelevant. One would be enough, and we have way more than that.

As for the persistence of some species, relatively unchanged, this is no conflict. There is no magic rule that says "everything must change 5% per generation." If a species is doing well in its environment (as sharks, for example, seem to do) they may persist for millions of years. No problem, no conflict.

[PatrickHenry]

I should have pinged you for post 67.

[Dimensio]

Not liking biological definitions of "human" and "animal" does not change the fact that humans are animals.

[donh]

Is not absurd to pretend not to be able to tell the difference between humans and animals? Think about it! We are not animals.

I've thought about it really hard, and it seems we are, in fact, animals. Ants know how to do banking chores, and generally do a more consistent job of it than humans.

[Dimensio]

If the evolution fairy tale is real, it took humans less than 2 million years to evolve to the atom splitting, space traveling animal we are.

No, actually, it took several billion years. It's just that for a great part of that, the life forms reproducing on this planet couldn't be classified as "human".

Dinosaurs were susposedly evolving for 10's of millions of years, why did they not achieve such greatness?

Never the right mutations in the right environmental conditions.

I have stumbled upon it! The mystery of the disappearance of the dinasour is solved, they built huge space craft and migrated to a more hospitable planet!

Evidence for this assertion, or are you just making inane statements and pretending that they have as much validity as real science because you're too lazy to study real science? Or are you too afraid to study real science for fear that the answers will challenge your worldview, so you remain deliberately ignorant so you can metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that if you don't know better, you must be right?

I notice that you diverged into this non-sequitur when you ran out of counters to the "humans are animals" statement. Of course, you weren't really countering the statement, you were just waving your hands about and shouting "IS NOT!" I suspect that you resorted to this non-sequitur because you realised that by all scientific definitions you are wrong, so you're trying to make people forget about your little blunder.

[donh]

if humans are not animals and they are certainly not plants

except for my high school hygiene teacher, whom I am pretty sure was actually a tulip bulb.

[f.Christian]

How the beast (( tyranny - fascism )) - anti christ came to America --- via evolution !


The reformation (( religious liberty - free speech )) - founding fathers created America !


Basically in the Bible - prophecy ... the mortal wound was what the reformation did to the papacy - europe --- separation of state and religion !

Now the wound has been healed and the new papists are the false science beasts of evolution that has taken over the lamb - republic of America to make it speak and act as a beast - dragon (( rev 13 )) !

It's all about the combination of new age atheist religion and secular powers to attack God - christianity - freedom !

This is all happening now in the public and private sectors ... religious test (( mark of the beast )) for office - jobs too !

Evolution is an illegal monopoly -- forbidden by the constitution !

Lucifer is ' bright ' sr ... intelligence --- no logic - wisdom - morality !

[Dimensio]

The question is, do we tell our children about this ongoing debate honestly, or do we try to lock them into one viewpoint or another by allowing only one to be taught in schools and elimiating the conflicting data?

I'm not really aware of anyone pressing for specifically "nihilistic evolution".

[donh]

There's an entire body of data that supports the theory that life does not spontaneously appear from inorganic material, which is what purely naturalistic evolution requires.

Than you can, no doubt, provide a pointer to said body of data.

[donh]

There are no "repeatable results" when it comes to evolution, any more than there are with archaeology. The study of life's origins, whether you look at it from a creation or naturalistic POV, is a historical science, not something that can be repeated in the lab.

Just as is the case in astronomy.

[donh]

. humans are not animals and they are certainly not plants.

except for my high school hygiene teacher, whom I am pretty sure was actually a tulip bulb.

Oh, and I forgot--f.christian, who may be a some obscure form of computer virus.

[f.Christian]

Soul - mind - social virus ... war in heaven --- earth too !

[jennyp]

We have a derth of transitional forms in the fossil records, when according to evolution we should have almost nothing but transitional forms--that is, we see stable species going along virtually unchanged for millions of years, not slow changes over time.

I think I'll break out my own Tree of Life graphic again:

See? It's usually a small population that breaks away from the big, successful population. The big population is already sitting pretty in its environmental niche, so any new beneficial mutation has to compete with all the existing alleles, which are doing their host organisms just fine, thank you. That plus the raw mathematics of population genetics means that a new mutation has practically a zero chance of taking over the gene pool.

But the breakaway population - that's a whole different story! If they get isolated in a different environment, then suddenly all sorts of selection pressures immediately change. Different alleles are now beneficial, and any recent mutations that are present in these individuals all of a sudden have a fighting chance to be really useful. Plus, mathematically it's much easier for a mutation (even a neutral one!) to take over a small population than a big one.

That's why we tend not to see transitional fossils between one species and the next, closely related one. But there are many progressions of species in the fossil record from one family to the next. In the 20th century, as the fields of ecology & population genetics became better understood & integrated with evolutionary biology, it became clear that this is the pattern that we should see, and that the traditional gradualistic tree was way too simplistic.

[ApesForEvolution]

Creation BTTT