Posted on 09/28/2009 3:00:59 PM PDT by MNDude
A Mercedes isn’t a life form and a garage isn’t a hospitable environment. The analogy doesn’t work.
completely dismiss and disprove many religious myths...
And he will decide what those religious beliefs and myths are...
I tend not to get involved in creation vs. evolution debates here on Free Republic; nor would I recommend that students enter into such debates with their science teachers. Discussions of that sort usually generate more heat than light.
I would recommend a different approach. Evolution is a scientifically useful model of the origin of species. It is one of many scientifically useful models, none of which accounts for the existence or nonexistence of God. Indeed, science carefully avoids any consideration of teleological or supernatural explanations.
Therefore, anyone who cites science as somehow disproving religion is misusing science. He or she is ill-suited to work as a science teacher.
Further, he'll be hard pressed to try to prove the non-existence of something. That's quite a logical flaw for a purported scientist.
BTW and FWIW, I do accept evolution as a virtual certainty but see little to gain and nothing positive about attacking peoples' religious beliefs.
to your nephew:
ask him to explain the striking convergence of species split by 125 of evolution and on entire different branches of the evolutionary tree. Namely placentals and marsupials which look almost exactly the same as one another.
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage14.html
If he can’t explain this you win.
If he explains it correctly he will say that the convergence is parallel evolution of species in similar environments which favor specific gene mutations.
Respond stating that the timeline for a specific mutation to occur in a given species and become accepted with it’s DNA is longer than the life time of a species (Very rare). That him believing that the random events occurred for too many to mention lifeforms to exhibit convergence at roughly the same point in the evolutionary timeline requires blind faith by him in a hypothesis that can not be tested nor proven. Then give him a stern glance and say when he chose to begin this course by stating he would disprove religious myths he opened the dialect to include religious debate. That you choose to believe that there is a guiding force behind the evolution of species while he believes in the option of countless random events occurring to make order out of chaos. Remind him that usually that is not the case, such as in entropy. Then tell him please not to mention religion again or you will be forced to inform his boss of the matter.
125 million years*
I think evolution is a correct theory of the development of life and I frequently take issue with posters who want to teach intelligent design in the classroom. By the same token, this teacher has no business attacking religious beliefs in his classroom. It isn’t even a philosophy class. He’s off base and should be reined in.
Spot on.
I don’t even read the evolution threads, but your post is probably relevant to all of them also.
I’d have an attorney contact the school. Try HSLDA. It’s their bread and butter. (HSLDA stands for Home School Legal Defense Association). They take cases in this area of law and do a masterful job. They are really good at what they do.
bttt
I’d like to add that I think it is important for your son to see you stand up about this and not just go with the flow. It may be one of the most important things you ever teach him.
Excuse me, I mean your nephew, and while it would be a good example for you to fight it, it won’t have the impact it would have were you his dad.
Actually, a couple of years back, researchers from one of the big physics universities (CalTech or somewhere like that) published a paper describing "what banged". It was an object the size of a marble, and it exploded in something like three trillion-trillionths of a second (they were very precise, and they were perfectly serious) into all the matter and energy in the known universe. Translation: The Goddess laid an egg.
I don't buy the Genesis story either, but until serious researchers can come up with something that at least sounds more plausible on its face, I can't take them seriously when it comes to pondering the origins of the universe.
It is probably unwise for a student (or anyone else) to bring up entropy unless he really understands entropy.
Those who cite entropy as an argument against evolution are misusing thermodynamics. (I say that as someone who teaches engineering thermodynamics.)
The man is a propagandist clearly. There is no reason in a class where reason is not allowed.
I’d like to see meaningful discussion of the possibility of intelligent design included in science teaching. I’m taking college biology courses (in my 40s, after an unrelated career), and the constant drumbeat of “it’s all from evolution” claims, with no real attempt to present back-up for this and, other than snide asides, no mention of intelligent design as a possible factor at any stage, is about as intellectually honest as a fundamentalist Sunday School teacher constantly harping about the KJV Bible being the absolute literal word of God which is not to be questioned.
I’m not the only student who’s finding the approach intellectually dishonest and insulting to our intelligence. The “evidence” presented to back the nothing-but-evolution claims consists of “trust me” statements about things which haven’t been covered in the course in anywhere near enough detail for students to be in a position to challenge the claims. We’re expected to swallow it whole, just like students in a fundamentalist Sunday School class are supposed to swallow “evidence” consisting of “because it says so right here in the KJV Bible”.
No. I agree that Genesis has too many holes. I could never figure out how Cain and Able found women to marry when there shouldn’t have been any. I think maybe that Adam and Eve were thought to be the first of their group in the area and outsiders were somehow ignored. But, I do believe in intelligent design. I really don’t think we are alone.
You shouldn’t expect a debate on Intelligent Design in a Biology course. You might find it in another course though. Do some course shopping. Sometimes certain teachers are better at letting students learn by debate. Do some teacher shopping.
I was not stating that entropy was supportive of evolution. I stated that evolution without guidance is order out of chaos which is usually not the case and gave an example of entropy.
Also when I say order out of chaos, I understand natural selection is a deciding factor on which random events to choose. But the random mutations happening at the same time period to give us the convergence we see today is highly unlikely and would suggest that either there is some guiding force in the mutations occurring or there is a natural order in the random events other than evenly spread.
I cited entropy and should have been specific about statistical entropy because it favors randomness rather than a pattern simply because there are more microstates within the macrostate which is “average”.
If there are 100 mutations and 5 time periods the largest macrostate would be 20-20-20-20-20. One of the smallest being 0-0-0-0-100. Yet, what we see in parallel evolution is much closer to 0-0-0-0-100.
correct me if i’m wrong please I never took thermodynamics.
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.