Denying Evolution Is Denying Biology

NY Times ^ | 2/2/04

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I have always been amazed at the ability of the Christian right to bully educators into diluting the teaching of evolution and promoting so-called creation science in public school classrooms. I suspect that part of the reason for this is a misappreciation of the importance of evolution by the general public.

Evolution is not an isolated concept that can be expediently omitted from a high-school biology syllabus. Rather, it is the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent.

Can you imagine asking a physics teacher to cover everything except Newton's laws?

Maybe soon a small group of reactionaries will persuade a school board to teach students that apples do not fall to earth because of gravity, but because of some mystical phenomenon that can neither be studied nor understood. ALBERT E. PRICE

New Haven, Jan. 30, 2004

The writer is a research fellow, department of cell biology, Yale University School of Medicine.

[donh]

Macroevolution (Darwinism) has never been demonstrated, is probably untestable, and is subject to many criticisms.

Micro-gravity, occuring in the vacuum between stars, has never been demonstrated, is probably untestable, and is subject to many criticisms. Undoubtedly, Gravity only occurs close to large mass accumulations. there is no credible evidence that it exists in empty space.

[Eternal_Bear]

Name one Nobel Prize winner in the sciences that believes in "Creationism". Just one. Anyone?

[SaveTheChief]

Why is it that in every little jabbering, blubbering liberal rant, one is likely to find the phrase "so-called?"

Can't they do anything but whine? I imagine most of them end up saying "whatever" when they lose a debate too!

Just an observation

[ZULU]

"This belief that believing in evolution is neccessary to understand any aspect of Biology is a religion, IMHO."

Is believing in quantum mechanics to understand physics a religion also?

How about Grimm's Law. Does believing in Grimm's law to understand linguistics constitute a religion?

In any field of studies there are ceratin very basic underlying priniciples that must be understood and believed in, new facts not proving to the contrary, in order to understand that discipline. Evolution is one of the basic prinicples of modern biology. Its not a "religion". A religion is based on faith. Science is based on proveable or observable, quantifiable facts.

[Mother Mary]

>There are many of those on the evolution side who are just as guilty of treating evolution as religious doctrine. That's what I object to.<

What else would you call "the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent"????

I call it a Relgious worldview that influences everything the believer thinks about the origen and purpose of human life.

[ZULU]

"Macroevolution (Darwinism) has never been demonstrated, is probably untestable, and is subject to many criticisms."

Macroevolution by its very nature would be difficult to prove under laboratory conditions. However, the circumstantial evidence that has been accumulated should leave not doubt as to its veracity in any individual familiar with this evidence and an open mind.

[Conspiracy Guy]

OK we are on the same page. I thought for a minute there I was being bashed for not believing in Randomness. I'll go one further. Evolution is limited to the adaptability built into each creature by God. Man was never a fish.

CG

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

My contention is that it doesn't matter, faith is faith. For example, why did the world have to be created in 7 days? What is wrong with a day as a different period of time? And similar to the other scientific issues being discussed, the facts are not superfluous, but they must coexist with our faith.

[FrankR]

Horse Puckie....

[MississippiMan]

ALBERT E. PRICE, with his exaulted position and impeccable credentials, must think himself as one of the elite.

I'm good with that. Don't mind a bit thinking of him as Prince Albert.

MM

[spunkets]

"Macroevolution (Darwinism) has never been demonstrated, is probably untestable, and is subject to many criticisms.

So what? It is consistent with the facts. Also, each of the mechanical elements of the overall theory are testable. It remains a valid scientific theory, because of that.

Re:The "screed" as you call it.

"Evolution is not an isolated concept that can be expediently omitted from a high-school biology syllabus. Rather, it is the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent. "

Other than the use of the word unify, it's basically true. It is a theory that consists of a set of minor theories and hypothesis that provide an overall understanding of how present life forms got here. The "unity" signifies only that it's interdisciplinary. There is no faith here and it is not a religion.

"Biology, like all sciences, is a system of testing facts or concepts."

Biology is a scientific discipline that focuses on all direct aspects of life. It is a body of knowledge, a subset of science. The scientific method is a system for testing facts and concepts.

[Shryke]

I call it a Relgious worldview that influences everything the believer thinks about the origen and purpose of human life.

Why do literal creationist continue with this "world-view" ^%$#? Labeling someone you've never met with a specific "world-view" (and golly, what would that world-view be? Let me guess: Godless, communist, liberal, blah blah blah) simply because they believe in a damn solid scientific theory just lets everyone know your judgemental worldview. Even more curious: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, and last time I checked, you're not supposed to be judging anyone but yourself.

[Always Right]

I believe in divine Intervention. God intervened to create a Universe out of nothing and establish the biological, chemical and physical laws which resulted in the world around us, us, and all life.

Then you are dismissing an important part of the theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution contends that it is the results of random events and mutations. I would say that you don't believe in evolution if you believe in divine intervention, and I know that are biologists who would agree with that assessment. Divine intervention has no role in the theory of evolution.

[balrog666]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, and last time I checked, you're not supposed to be judging anyone but yourself.

Yeah, isn't it funny how the creationoids never seem to follow their own precepts.

I wonder what's riled them up lately. Is DU organizing another putsch attempt?

[longshadow]

"Festival of Newbie Luddites" placemarker

[Shryke]

It's more of a tragic comedy to me.

[ZULU]

The idea that man is the end result of a gradual evolutionary process is well grounded in science. The sum total of these events may APPEAR to be a random one.

However, when a biologist states the random selection contradicts the possibility of Divine Creation, he/she is straying from the field of biology and provable science into the realm of Theology, a field best left to Theologians.

I know there are atheists out there in the biological field and they rejoice in this interpretation.

HOWEVER, if someone believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator-God (a matter of faith which cannot be disproved by Science) and that person believes that God was responsible for creating the evolutionary laws which produced man (again, a matter of faith which cannot be disproved by science), it is not possible for that individual to believe that man was a truly random product.

The facts of evolution are there and beyond dispute among biologists. They represent the HOW. They leave unanswered the WHY - and as a Christian, I believe I know the answer to that question. Random theory still leaves unanswered the WHY.

[DeepDish]

Name one Nobel Prize winner in the sciences that believes in "Creationism". Just one. Anyone?

Albert Einstein favorite aphorism was "God does not play dice with the universe". He said it so often that Niels Bohr finally replied, "Albert, quit telling God what to do." I am sure my recollections of the quotes are not exact, but they are accurate. These are two Nobel winners who can reasonably be construed as no less than deists. Whether they believed in a "creation" or not is up to you. As far as I am concerned Einstein almost certainly did.

[Always Right]

HOWEVER, if someone believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator-God (a matter of faith which cannot be disproved by Science) and that person believes that God was responsible for creating the evolutionary laws which produced man (again, a matter of faith which cannot be disproved by science), it is not possible for that individual to believe that man was a truly random product.

I am sorry, but evolution is the single unifying concept of biology. If you don't buy into the random nature that the theory of evolution states, how can you possibly study biology....You seem to want to cherry pick parts of Evolution and declare them absolutely neccessary to understand Biology. There is no reason why a person can hold any view of Evolution they choose and still be a brilliant Biologists.

[stanz]

There's no question that life evolved on this planet. This does not only involve human evolution; that's just one facet of it. Biology concerns itself with cell differentiation and speciation - - -two obvious components of any first-year bio lab course. Evolution is at the basis of these phenomena. Not studying evolution in a biological context is tantamount to taking organic chemistry without any calculus foundation.