Museums take up evolution challenge (because "biology classes have faltered")

Chicago Tribune ^ | 16 Oct 05 | Lisa Anderson

[gobucks]

Natural history museums around the country are mounting new exhibits they hope will succeed where high school biology classes have faltered: convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science.

Snip

"I think everyone is realizing that we need to be doing a great deal more. We just haven't made the effort to communicate evolution to people in terms they can understand. Evolution is exciting," Diamond said.

snip

"One of the big misunderstandings, I think, is that a lot of people have stopped realizing that science is a secular activity," said Lance Grande. Field's $17 million, 20,000-square foot, "Evolving Planet" exhibit is slated to open on March 10, 2006.

snip

"In many ways, I blame science itself in that we have done a terrible job of explaining what science is," said Leonard Krishtalka of ... Kansas in Lawrence.

"I would imagine to non-scientists a lot of science and technology sounds like so much magic," he said. "Is it any surprise that so many people are choosing one kind of magic over another kind of magic?"

In an effort to deepen visitors' understanding of evolution, the Field Museum has designed "Evolving Planet" to showcase dinosaurs without allowing them to overshadow everything else. In past evolution exhibits, McCarter said, people "whipped through the origin of life, and everything before the dinosaurs, to go look at the dinosaurs. And by the time they got done looking at the dinosaurs, they were so tired that they whipped out."

This time, he said, "we're using the dinosaurs as kind of the marquee to draw them in and saying, this is a very complicated story, which you've got to dig into over a long period of time."

[From many - one.]

Frivolous non-response noted.

[Mark was here]

Frivolous non-response noted.

Asking why genetics are they way they are, is the big question, and no one knows for sure.

Just don't know why you haven't published the "Law of Evolution" yet.

The whole point of discussing this issue, amoung Freepers, is not to make enemies, but to kick around some topics. My point is that ID is a political response to evolution. If you disagree fine.

[From many - one.]

Having read the Wedge Document, I am aware that ID is anything but a political response to evolution.

As for variance in a population, I think you have chosen not to answer. I didn't ask you why genetics is the way it is.

I'm not entirely sure what you think a "Law of Evolution" would be, but let me assure you there is not such thing and will not be in the forseeable future.

[csense]

what I said is as plain as the sky is blue

So, let me get this straight. If I go outside, at night, and shine a light upwards, I'll see blue, correct?

Me thinks you've walked into the territory of unitended irony.

[csense]

Read: unintended

[Havoc]

Yep, it sure is. Just like Dem talking points. You haven't gotten your message out. Keep going lol

[Havoc]

Right. The proof in the pudding is that it's never seen; but, to prove it you have to see it. Works about as well as the "we're not about proofs" thing and then telling everyone it's as near proven as anything can get - and oh, yeah, you'll have to trust us on that cause we're smart lol..

[MississippiMan]

Maybe you're just bad at math.

Well, there are things I'm bad at, but math is not among them.

MM

[Havoc]

LOL.. yep, only a creo would be dumb enough to expect proof instead of people begging off proof by saying 'science doesn't deal in them.' That may sound logical to a creo. It sets off the charlatan alarm built in to the modern human from cynicism and rampant abuse seen in everyday life. You can't explain that out of existance. It's not your self defined get out of proof free card that they don't understand. They understand it just fine, they just flat reject it for the charlatanism it is.

[bobdsmith]

Then I guess all those people who believe the apollo moon landings were faked just show that NASA isn't getting the message out.

And all those people who deny the holocaust just shows the historians aren't getting the message out.

Etc

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Right. The proof in the pudding is that it's never seen; but, to prove it you have to see it. Works about as well as the "we're not about proofs" thing and then telling everyone it's as near proven as anything can get - and oh, yeah, you'll have to trust us on that cause we're smart lol.."

No, the idiotic example you gave of one species giving birth to another has never been observed, because it goes against everything the ToE says. If it WAS observed, that would be a great falsification of the ToE. I am sorry you didn't realize how stupid your example was. Building a moronic strawman of what you think the theory says and then smashing this construction does not mean you have argued against the real ToE. It just means you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about.

[George W. Bush]

There is so much science in the world today. The innovations and applications of those ideas have created remarkable tecnological advances.

True enough.

On that basis, other supernatural explanations and invocations are given equal footing with scientific achievements. To the uneducated public, they don't seem any different.

I think a lot of the public has memories of an angry biology teacher who did very little to make science attractive. As compared to the local friendly ministers who have nice charity projects and activities for young people.

Yeah, it shouldn't matter but it does.

Hence the willingness of school boards and politicians to treat ID and evolution on equal footing. They are ignorant of what evolution means and the facts that science has used to construct this theory.

In the popular mind, science is useful only as far as it is useful. They don't believe in science for its own sake and never have. Maybe we should compare evolution to real science.

Does evolution cure cancer or create drugs? Bring about new weapons systems? Better aircraft or spacecraft? Better video games or flat-panel HDTV displays?

No?

What the heck? What's it good for then? The Bible at least has ancient literary merit and spurs endless debate. And we can still hope to do something to give our old militant atheist biology teacher a heart attack...

[Havoc]

My example was so stupid that it is part of one of many evolution theories. It wouldn't falsify TOE. Rainbow's explanations of TOE in debate with Kent Hovind actually says that mutation has the best chance in formative stages in the womb - that would lead to precisely what I discussed. You guys need to get your stories straight and quit trying to beg off with nonsense.

[Havoc]

If you want to reach into areas of the absurd, go right ahead. Be my guest. I suppose the dims really were having a message problem then, huh.. rofl. Just keeps gettin better don't it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My example was so stupid that it is part of one of many evolution theories."

No it isn't. No evolutionary biologist believes that an organism will give birth to a new species. That's simply not possible, and is a creationist myth. Why do creationists feel the need to lie in order to make their case?

"Rainbow's explanations of TOE in debate with Kent Hovind actually says that mutation has the best chance in formative stages in the womb - that would lead to precisely what I discussed. You guys need to get your stories straight and quit trying to beg off with nonsense."

Who's Rainbow? Please provide a link to their quote. Your synopsis of the quote is vague at best.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The alliance isn't new. It's been going on for some time. The guy is Mustafa Akyol

Of course, the Islamic view is that "evolution" is a Jewish and American Imperalist conspiracy.

[Havoc]

Dr. Matthew Rainbow and he doesn't state that new species will be born, he rather hints at the best place for mutations to occur, which is in the process of the formation of the fetus.
So whatever comes out isn't the same as what gave rise to the life form. It makes perfect sense; but, nobody has ever witnessed it happen. On the other hand, he also postulates that evolution is this immense machine that hides in plain site and no one can ever see it working... Just like Fast Rob's Alchemical elixer cures warts, the common cold, removes stains, numbs a sore tooth and heals blindness.. Not that you'll ever "see" it happen except in the stage show - it is a good bargain for whiskey though.. only a few cents more than any other brand..

[Havoc]

I'd further submit that giving birth to a different species would not falsify the TOE. If mutation is random and doesn't know where it's going, there is no reason this couldn't be the case.. other than the fact that minds are involved in considering how man and other animals would react in this case and note the problem that brings about. Evolution as a blind stumbling engine, wouldn't care.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Dr. Matthew Rainbow and he doesn't state that new species will be born, he rather hints at the best place for mutations to occur, which is in the process of the formation of the fetus."

So in other words you lied before:
"Rainbow's explanations of TOE in debate with Kent Hovind actually says that mutation has the best chance in formative stages in the womb - that would lead to precisely what I discussed."

Your initial statement was:
"Lets assume for a second that a mother were to give birth to something inhuman.. "

This is absurd and no evolutionist believes this can happen. Even your vague paraphrasing of Dr. Rainbow doesn't sound anything like that. It is not *precisely what you discussed* at all.

You still have not provided any link to what Rainbow actually said. Hovind I don't trust as far as I can spit. A Google search only brings me to Hovind's site, with no quotes from Rainbow.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'd further submit that giving birth to a different species would not falsify the TOE."

Sure it would. The ToE calls for a slow (relatively) process of speciation (even Punctuated Equilibrium Theory works over 10's of thousands of years), with new species formed as isolated (reproductively) populations change in tandem by small steps. If an organism gave birth to a new species, there wouldn't be another of the same species to mate with. It's not how any evolutionist says evolution can or does work.