Posted on 06/17/2004 8:46:09 PM PDT by Zender500
In her June 1 Viewpoints column, Lisa Peters expressed her frustration with evolution not being discussed enough in schools. I couldn't agree more. As a high school teacher, I would love to see elementary, middle and high school students do any of the following:
• Let's discuss the difference between evidence and interpretations of evidence — e.g., the evidence of common features (limbs or DNA).
Evolution explains that common features are caused by a common origin. But other scientists believe that common features may be the result of a common design, with the same effective design used repeatedly. Wheels appear on everything from trikes, bikes and motorcycles to cars, vans and buses. Let's discuss if that means that bikes randomly evolved over eons of time into motorcycles.
• Let's discuss with students the three distinct shades of meaning of the term "evolution" — 1: simply "change itself"; or 2: "variation within a species" (moth populations changing dominant color but still being simply moths); or 3: "the unbroken line of development from molecules to humans." Let's discuss how both creationists and evolutionists agree with the first two meanings but disagree only about the theorized, unobserved definition 3 of molecules-to-humans development. Let's discuss Peters' misleading claim that disagreement with definition 3 is equivalent to rejecting definition 1 regarding simple change per se. Let's discuss what this is: unclear terminology at best, bait-and-switch at worst.
• Let's have students discuss what committed evolutionists admit: that evolution is not so much a conclusion from evidence as it is an assumption of how the evidence should be interpreted. Evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted his bias of explaining all things only by existing natural processes of chance interactions of matter, energy and time.
• Let's have students discuss the Pennsylvania State professor who found that his own biology colleagues admitted that they would not have done their own biology research any differently even if they had believed that evolution was wrong.
• Let's have students discuss Peters' claim that "we share 98 percent of our genes … with chimpanzees." Let's put Peters' claim alongside the statement of evolutionist William Fix that "[Similar] organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology [similarity] in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."
Then let's examine the sentences "Many scientists have questions about evolution" and "Any scientists have questions about evolution?" which are about 97 percent similar yet have dramatically different meanings and functions. Does similarity require that one evolved from the other?
• Let's have students discuss how the common decision of evolutionists to prevent scientific evidence from suggesting intelligent design is not a scientific decision. It is a philosophical decision — and an inconsistent one at that, as certain branches of science (like archaeology) allow the conclusion that a stone was shaped into an arrowhead by the deliberate actions of an intelligent agent, rather than by the chance interactions of water and sand.
• Let's discuss with students the mathematical problems regarding the astronomically high improbability of atoms coming together by chance to make even a single protein molecule.
• Let's have students discuss excellent science books such as "Icons of Evolution," in which scientists admit that numerous common images of evolution — including Darwin's finches, four-winged fruit flies, Haeckel's embryos and peppered moths — are either fraudulent or irrelevant as evolutionary evidence.
Peters claims, "Elementary teachers … don't know much about evolution." But quite a few elementary teachers — and parents — I know are informed enough about evolution to find it wanting, for scientific reasons. Many teachers are scientifically skeptical of the "just-so" evolutionary stories that human features are "inherited from the earliest fish."
Many teachers recognize that when Peters makes this claim, she has crossed over from the observable, repeatable science of fossils and anatomy to the speculative belief system of evolutionary inferences.
Knowledge is power. Students and teachers should acquire more than just the selected knowledge that evolutionists want to limit students to. Then more students will find out what creationists, many laypeople and most evolutionists already know — that molecules-to-humans evolution is a theory in crisis. Let's have students discuss all these issues, because this crisis is not going to go away, regardless of Peters' stories.
Bob Hazen lives in St. Paul and teaches math at Mounds View High School.
oh, yeah. this'll be a sleepy, neglected thread.
ping :-)
There's a planted axiom in this nonsense theory. The deal for the evos is moral free agency - a complete lack of responsibility. "Do what thou wilt..."
PH, better call in the Thomas Huxley Battalion
Evolutionists believe common features are caused either by a common origin, OR by similar adaptation to the same environment.
Dolphins and Fish superficially resemble each other in shape because they've adapted to swimming in water, with many common features. However, Dolphins evolved from land mammals that returned to water, so once you cut them open they have almost no common features with fish and lots with land mammals.
Fortunately this clown is a math teacher, certainly has no business teaching biology.
We see liberals implicitly take this line of reasoning when they try to excuse child molesters or murderers or Islamokazis.
The best evidence for evolution are the creationists, for they have not evolved.
Way way back (I need Mr. Peabody's way back machine for this) when Evolution and Creation was taught to me, it was required that both be given equal time. Well, the teacher I had treated Evolution as serious scientific fact, and Creation as a joke.
"Does he also tell kids that 2+2=5?"
Only if it feels good. Everythings reletive you know. ;)
No more than 6 posts and the ad hominem starts. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
He makes several points which one interested in refuting him can address:
When I was at OU the head of the Geology department and the head of the Zoology department debated two guys from a Creation science organization.
The Geologist was very honest. He admitted that valid models of geology could be built on either a creationist or an evolutionary viewpoint. He stated that he employed evolutionary models because of what he knew of zoology and biology.
In other words, he chose to interpret the geologic data from an evolutionary viewpoint due to assumptions derived from OTHER disciplines.
Alas, to be named GSlob. Oozed thou from the primordial muck, GSlob?
Thanks, but when people here profess having no surprise at results that surprise scientists, I find it futile to discuss opinion with them. This thread will end up being in the backroom or the bitbucket.
Why do creationists spend ALL their time trying to tear down the theory of evolution, and NONE of their time supporting their own "theory"?
"The best evidence for evolution are the creationists, for they have not evolved."
LOL....How true, how true.
Teach creationism in Sunday School.
Teach evolution in science class.
That is how I learned both.
Teaching one or the other loses valuable data.
BOTH schools of thought are needed. BOTH schools of thought bring value to moral developement.
Well, as I pointed out, his first point is either a deliberate fabrication, or an utter misunderstanding of evolution, resulting in a nonsensical point.
It's sort of hard to take people seriously that don't even remotely understand the theory they're attacking.
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.