The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 27, 2009 | Anika Smith

[GodGunsGuts]

The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination

According to an international poll released by the British Council, the majority of Americans — 60% — support teaching alternatives to evolution in the science classroom. The percentage is the same for Britons, despite the fact that both countries have been inundated with pro-Darwin media coverage in this super-mega Darwin Year.

Of course, the British media reporting this are chagrined. Britain is the birthplace of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, and the official-sounding British Council, the UK group behind the “Darwin Now” campaign that commissioned the Ipsos MORI poll, have spent precious resources educating the world about Darwin. Now some believe the poll shows that efforts by Darwinist organizations aren't working.

Head of the British Council’s Darwin Now program Fern Elsdon-Baker said, “Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process.”

While Darwin’s apologists might try to explain the poll numbers as an example of ignorance influencing people’s beliefs, the numbers themselves suggest a different picture.

Across the board, most respondents from the ten countries polled thought that “other perspectives on the origins of species” “such as intelligent design and creationism” should be taught in science class*. When the poll is weighted to include only those respondents who have heard of Charles Darwin and know something about his theory of evolution, the percentage supporting alternate theories increases, from 60% to 66% in Britain and 60% to 64% in the U.S.

The correlation appears again when we consider which countries have more knowledge of Darwin’s theory. The highest numbers of those in support of alternative theories in the classroom correspond to the highest numbers of those familiar with Charles Darwin — 60% in Britain, 65% in Mexico, 61% in China, 66% in Russia, and 60% in the U.S. It appears that the more people know about Darwin’s theory, the more they want to see alternatives in science class.

The basic truth is that most people want evolution to have to compete for its place of dominance in their schools. Interestingly, the U.S. was the only nation with significant knowledge of Darwin where respondents chose the option “theories about the origins of species and development of life on earth should not be taught in science lessons at all.” 14% chose that, compared with 3% in Britain.

*This takes both those who select "other perspectives" only and those who select "other perspectives" together with "evolutionary theories." It should be noted that Discovery Institute opposes efforts to mandate teaching alternative theories in the science classroom — we'd rather have the whole picture of evolution, the scientific arguments both for and against the theory, presented instead.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! When I read your earlier post in response to "demand" I thought we were finally going to have a conversation about final cause.

Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[betty boop]

LOLOL! When I read your earlier post in response to "demand" I thought we were finally going to have a conversation about final cause.

Well, that would have been lovely, dearest sister in Christ, But there seems to be few if any takers willing to explore the "demand" proposition, here in FReeperLand, so far, as far as I can see....

[betty boop]

p.s.: All of which makes me feel very sad.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You are biased, you won’t admit it. Like I said nothing further to discuss.

I guess there never was. "We're both biased, so my explanation is as good as yours" isn't much grounds for discussion.

[Ira_Louvin]

So there is no amount of evidence that would cause you to change your position?

So your position is based on a religious belief and not empirical evidence, you distort the available evidence to make it fit your religious views. That is not how science works; in fact it is the exact opposite of science. So why do you not just go ahead and admit that you are anti-science since as you state no amount of evidence would cause you to change your mind.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

You have said yourself that you think that the explaination fits better with the evidence. That is an explaination based on your bias. I think the evidence fits better with creation. Our worldview colors the way we view the evidence whether or not you are willing to admit it.

in the article below, this women questioned the idea that soft tissue could last for millions of years but she NEVER questioned whether or not her sample was millions of years old. Her bias prevented it. Then later she says that creationists “hijacked” her findings. Not true, creationist questioned her paradigm. Also in the article it said that palentologist often disagree with creationists. There are YEC palentologist. Just another attempt to discredit any scientist who doesn’t believe in evolution.

“It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz0VWJlUjUr

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

So you ARE begging the question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt obviously undeservedly. For me to answer this question I would HAVE to assume that evolution could be true. You bring me evidence that you think is conclusive evidence that evolution happened. Remember, I believe in speciation, natural selection and mutations. These are not evidences of goo to you evolution. There is no evidence for evolution because it is not true.

Is there any amount of evidence that would cause you to change your position and believe the earth is young? Yes I realize that this is begging the question but I just wanted to turn it around on you. What about this evidence?

“It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz0VWJlUjUr

This evidence didn’t seem to cause this woman to question her belief that the earth is millions of years old. She was committed to her paradigm. Do you think SHE is anti-science? No, she is viewing it from her worldview. Something we all do. We try to be objective when it comes to science but we can’t really help it. Our beliefs and experiences shape the way we view things. No one is unbiased.

I am not anti-science. As much as you would like it to be true, evolution is actually very anti-science. To even question it can cause you to lose your job. There are plenty of scientists in all fields who believe in YEC.
My house looks like a science lab with all kinds of experiments in various stages of completion. I just finished teaching a botany class. I AM ANTI EVOLUTIONARY HISTORICAL SCIENCE. Is that good enough for you? Evolution is FAR from operational science so why don’t you go ahead and admit that you are anti operational science?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

So you ARE begging the question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt obviously undeservedly. For me to answer this question I would HAVE to assume that evolution could be true. You bring me evidence that you think is conclusive evidence that evolution happened. Remember, I believe in speciation, natural selection and mutations. These are not evidences of goo to you evolution. There is no evidence for evolution because it is not true.

Is there any amount of evidence that would cause you to change your position and believe the earth is young? Yes I realize that this is begging the question but I just wanted to turn it around on you. What about this evidence?

“It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz0VWJlUjUr

This evidence didn’t seem to cause this woman to question her belief that the earth is millions of years old. She was committed to her paradigm. Do you think SHE is anti-science? No, she is viewing it from her worldview. Something we all do. We try to be objective when it comes to science but we can’t really help it. Our beliefs and experiences shape the way we view things. No one is unbiased.

I am not anti-science. As much as you would like it to be true, evolution is actually very anti-science. To even question it can cause you to lose your job. There are plenty of scientists in all fields who believe in YEC.
My house looks like a science lab with all kinds of experiments in various stages of completion. I just finished teaching a botany class. I AM ANTI EVOLUTIONARY HISTORICAL SCIENCE. Is that good enough for you? Evolution is FAR from operational science so why don’t you go ahead and admit that you are anti operational science?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz0VWQ1iMRc

Another telling quote from the article. I also re read what I posted and it is interesting that she is personally offended when YECer’s differ with her opinion. Why is that I wonder? I have never been offended that someone disagreed with me even when they called me name and said I was ignorant and anti science.

[BrandtMichaels]

Ahh yes, the old science by consensus canard. AND since the consensus can mass produce ‘evidence’ in the form of websites and scientific just-so stories (esp. thanks to the computer and copy industry) therefore it carries even more weight than the scientific consensus from the historical past when science was also proven WRONG.

Ooohhh, let’s not forget that the large weight attributed to ‘scientific’ peer-reviews posted in their very own ‘scientific journals and periodicals’ - BIG TIME circle-jerk of even more grandiose consensus. What else could one expect if the leftist liberals control the msm and the universities?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Sorry about the double post. I clicked the browser back button to get Ha Ha’s full name and when I went back to my post it was the previous one to Ira and I didn’t realize it until I clicked the post button.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You have said yourself that you think that the explaination fits better with the evidence. That is an explaination based on your bias.

Since everyone is biased, then, we must treat every explanation as equally valid, is that your point? Not just in biology, but everywhere? If someone tells you that Carter was a better president than Reagan, do you just accept that as valid because, well, you're coming from a conservative bias and they're coming from a liberal bias? Like I said, this equivalency is just a way of waving away the evidence.

this women questioned the idea that soft tissue could last for millions of years but she NEVER questioned whether or not her sample was millions of years old. Her bias prevented it.

No, the accumulated weight of evidence for how old T. rex bones are--not just this one--prevented it. You seem to think she should have acted like this was the first T. rex bone ever discovered. Knowing and understanding the previous work done in your field so you don't have to reinvent the wheel isn't bias, it's education. In most contexts, you'd probably prize that.

Then later she says that creationists “hijacked” her findings. Not true, creationist questioned her paradigm.

I have never seen a creationist discuss her findings in context of any of the other evidence for how old T. rex bones are. They just wave this one discovery as though it's some kind of trump card, and on top of it they lie about the nature of the soft tissue discovered, calling it "squishy." That's not "questioning her paradigm," that's misrepresenting her findings to suit an agenda--"hijacking" is a good word for it.

Is there any amount of evidence that would cause you to change your position and believe the earth is young?

Sure. Let's see some. This dinosaur soft tissue is a tiny grain of sand against the mountain of evidence for an old earth, but I acknowledge it's something to consider. I'll pay even more attention when you can show me dinosaur soft tissue that's not just fragments of collagen inside a mineralized bone but something in a state like this:

[Rafterman]

Ahh yes, the old science by consensus canard.

Brandt, what other kind of science is there? Is peer-review not considered a kind of "concensus"? After all, if your peers cannot independently reproduce your experimental results, then you have no "science" at all!

And yes, I do realize that much of the so-called "historical" sciences are very much open to interpretation and opinion... but to dismiss them all as a "circle-jerk" is closed-minded at best, and disengenuous at worst.

[Rafterman]

There is no evidence for evolution because it is not true.

Based on this single statement alone, it is obvious that NO amount of objective, scientific evidence will ever convince you otherwise. You reject any evidence out of hand that does not agree with your world-view.

Your arguments, not being based in reason, cannot be swayed by reason.

[BrandtMichaels]

The peers are majority leftist and liberal. The process is more back-scratching and glad-handing then it is testing and re-creating results.

I’m just saying the stifling of dissent we are witnessing is an ominous sign repeated from some of the darkest historical moments known to man.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

You would similarly say, there is no evidence for creation because it is not true. I do not reject any EVIDENCE. I may reject YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence. Your interpretation of the evidence is not a reason to be swayed. Similarly my interpretation of the evidence is not a reason for you to be swayed. We both have a belief system. I admit to mine. When will you admit to yours and the fact that it affects how you look at the evidence?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“Since everyone is biased, then, we must treat every explanation as equally valid, is that your point? Not just in biology, but everywhere? If someone tells you that Carter was a better president than Reagan, do you just accept that as valid because, well, you’re coming from a conservative bias and they’re coming from a liberal bias? Like I said, this equivalency is just a way of waving away the evidence.”

Not equally valid no. But everyone does have a right to his own opinion. THAT is the point. Interpretation of the evidence is not fact but interpretation. You are welcome to yours and I am welcome to disagree. You want to call me anti science because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the evidence. You have a right to name call as well and that doesn’t bother me but don’t expect me to allow you to distort my views.

“You seem to think she should have acted like this was the first T. rex bone ever discovered. Knowing and understanding the previous work done in your field so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel isn’t bias, it’s education. In most contexts, you’d probably prize that.”

Then why do the experiment in the first place because her field already “KNEW” that soft tissue couldn’t survive 68 million years. She question THIS paradigm but not the age paradigm. It isn’t reinventing the wheel to ask questions. OBVIOUSLY something was wrong with the belief that a dinosaur bone couldn’t contain soft tissue.

“lie about the nature of the soft tissue discovered, calling it “squishy.”

Sources please because I have never seen this. I DO NOT say this. However she admitted herself that no one thought her find was possible. I am questioning her paradigm. Why didn’t she test the soft tissue for carbon 14? BECAUSE her beliefs say that there won’t be any carbon 14. Of course her belief before this said there wouldn’t be any soft tissue. Evolution causes ALOT of experiments to never be done as referenced in the article. “the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html#ixzz0VZChRzSL

“you can show me dinosaur soft tissue that’s not just fragments of collagen inside a mineralized bone”
It was a bit more that fragments of collagen. Of course I won’t accuse you of lying or distorting the facts to fit your worldview like you did to me.

“Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm

[Alamo-Girl]

It makes me sad, too, dearest sister in Christ!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

But everyone does have a right to his own opinion. THAT is the point. Interpretation of the evidence is not fact but interpretation. You are welcome to yours and I am welcome to disagree. You want to call me anti science because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the evidence.

Of course you have the right to your own opinion. I never said otherwise. I also never called you anti-science. Nevertheless, when it comes to science, I don't automatically grant that all opinions are equally valid.

Then why do the experiment in the first place because her field already “KNEW” that soft tissue couldn’t survive 68 million years.

I don't think this was considered some kind of rule. Sure, she was surprised to find tissue still soft after all that time. But it didn't violate some basic law in her field; it was just a surprise.

Sources please because I have never seen this.

Brian Thomas, of course: "In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones."

It was a bit more that fragments of collagen.

Perhaps I was mistaken about the collagen. National Geographic described the material as "flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels. The vessels resemble blood vessels, cells, and the protein matrix that bodies generate when bones are being formed." Collagen is defined as "The fibrous protein constituent of bone, cartilage, tendon, and other connective tissue." The descriptions sound similar to me, but I'm not an expert. At the same time, this source says, "To determine how well the tissue was preserved, Schweitzer and colleagues subjected the tissue to a slew of mineral, molecular and chemical analyses, which turned up small, almost undetectable amounts of material that had all the characteristics of collagen — an identifiable and relatively hardy protein."

I'm right about the fragments, though. The sources I can find say the pieces she found were fractions of millimeters to some few millimeters in size, and all the photos I see of them are from electron microscopes. Whatever the stuff was, there wasn't much of it.

Of course I won’t accuse you of lying or distorting the facts to fit your worldview like you did to me.

I have never accused you of lying or distorting the facts. Why does creationism so often come with a side order of persecution complex?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

I apologize, it wasn’t you that said I was anti-science.

Thanks for the source, I have never heard of this man. I agree describing it as squishy is misleading. The article I gave you said it was pliable. That isn’t the same thing.

I don’t have a persecution complex you said this
“I have never seen a creationist discuss her findings in context of any of the other evidence for how old T. rex bones are. They just wave this one discovery as though it’s some kind of trump card, and on top of it they lie about the nature of the soft tissue discovered, calling it “squishy.”

This one article says squishy not all creationists. I am a creationist therefore by default I was accused of lying.

Enjoying the discussion, keep it coming!