Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
I thought about that, but then my experience on FR has taught me that those who challenge evolution seldom believe in physics, chemistry, astronomy or geology.
Perhaps it would be more productive to teach geology in hih school instead of biology.
Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Laboratory tests have not yet demonstrated that small bacteria (prokaryotic cells) can change into separate organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts within larger bacterial cells. When smaller bacterial cells (prokaryotes) are absorbed by larger bacterial cells, they are usually destroyed by digestion. Although some bacterial cells (prokaryotes) can occasionally live in eukaryotes, scientists have not observed these cells changing into organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts.
This is straight out of the creationist handbook. There are basically two creationists "challenges" to evolution: "nobody was there to see it happen" and "we haven't repeated the event in the laboratory".
In science, the theory with the MOST supporting evidence wins. The "challenge" presented here is not a scientific challenge. A scientific challenge would consist of data which clearly supports another hypothesis. As it happens, any science with a historical aspect, such as biology or cosmology, is going to suffer from an inherent absence of data and a near impossibility for laboratory replication.
This is anti-science propaganda, pure and simple.
In a particular sense of the term science, yes. Although winning may imply a bit more of the political, which many have said is not a science.
Well, we can't very well repeat the event in the laboratory, because laboratory events are designed, aren't they?
;^)
So in the absense of a time machine, we'll just have to concede that evolution is wrong.
The creationist would have similar complaints about geology. Age of the earth, flood evidence, etc.
I facillate on the importance of teaching biology at the primary or secondary level. I recommend that students learn biolgy early because there is much to learn. But, on the other hand, we supplement our childrens' public education first with math. And a lot of it.
Too controversial! Geology is still evolution. So is the Big Bang. I know, because I once found a web page of "Questions for Evolutionists" and read about 10 questions before I found anything to do with biology.
Ah, sheesh, cornelis, funny how language and metaphors intrude upon what would be an idealistic "pure" science. I use 'winning' to carry continue in the context of "competing theories". The intelligent designers would like to have us believe that a theory, when imperfect, falls flat on it's face in the absence of a competing theory.
But that would be embarrassing to admit in front of the school board, so let's pick on a branch of science that hasn't done anything for us.
Except for possibly medicine, agriculture, and one or two other things.
Critical analysis of assumptions that lead to questions such as "what is science, what is theory" may be relegated to higher education. (I personally resisted that, as I recall, already in kindergarten when I began the analyzing the problems in my thinking produced by the practical necessity of adopting assumptions uncritically).
Still, benchmarks or outcomes are not simply pedagogical decisions. A political aspect becomes apparent when we see how the simple skill of reading has taken second place in elementary education. It is another example that somebody might hesitate to call education.
Odd thing, the methodology of criticism itself will eventually come under scrutiny when anybody is pressed to seriously decide what consitutes a legitimate challenge. Post-modern criticism of modernism has not been kind to the natural progress of anything. It negates. Not good for education. Of course, the idea that a quantitative benchmark such as the MOST evidence does have a practical, demotic appeal. With it the singular occurence is given short-rift--and easily relegated to the un-natural.
Exactly. They are against science, period, and evolution is their wedge issue.
An obvious slam on psychology, but I'm cool with it.
When they say "I just don't accept evolution," it makes them sound less kooky than is really the case. Semantic bait-and-switch. They don't accept much of anything, really.
And beyond. Critical analysis is something that scientists engage in when doing science. This does not mean that it's something elementary educators and their students must do. Educating and learning at this level is not doing science, nor should it be.
How about: Explain how Charles Darwin and his simple-minded theory got 150 million people killed in two world wars in the space of 30 years.
Why not? How do you define the "level" at which the inquiring mind can appropriately engage in the discipline of science?
One can always go deeper and question why we ever had the scientific revolution with its assumptions about what we can know about nature and wonder "Why not something else?" Possibly because it has led to such immediate successes in the gain of useful knowledge. Who knows? But there is always the opportunity for someone with completely different assumptions to start their own field.
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.