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.

[Always Right]

Do a google search on Texas Tech evolution, and numerous stories should appear.

[Bluntpoint]

I find it hard to accept that I evolved from these:

[HungarianGypsy]

ROFLOL! That's the part I don't believe in. I do believe that creatures are likely to mate with the best and strongest, though. That's the part of natural selection I believe in.

[js1138]

Here's what I found with google:

"If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences," he previously wrote.

Now his Web site reads: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

I see no reference to the word evolution here in either instance. What is required is a scientific explanation. Since Creation Scientists have explanations, they should be able to present them, provided they can defend them. No problem.

[barkingdog]

Mr.Price's remarks seem to be void of substance. Newton's theory was proved to be correct. Mr. Darwin's theory however, remain (after more then 100 years) only a unproven theory. Not one shred of evidence. Not one pound of prof. Yet he would have every child adhere to this theory. Considering Mr. Price's job, I would call his comments self serving.

[ThinkPlease]

This exchange, just like so many on these evolution threads, has hit bottom. I'm done - feel free to grab your shovel and dig.

Well, see you on the next thread then. Best of luck to you on your own.

[whattajoke]

As is often said about me, I can say to you, "your screen name is apt."

Newton's theory was proved to be correct. Mr. Darwin's theory however, remain (after more then 100 years) only a unproven theory. Not one shred of evidence. Not one pound of prof.[sic]

1. No "theory" is "proven."
2. All "theories" go "unproven."
3. You're right, there's not "one shred" of evidence but entire boatloads' worth.
4. And yes, not "one pound of proof," but tons.

you seem to be getting it.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Maybe evolutionists should spend some time developing a clock that tells the correct time!

Erratic overdispersion of three molecular clocks: GPDH, SOD, and XDH

From the article:

"...has raised the question of how reliable the molecular clock is or, indeed, whether there is a molecular clock at all.

[Always Right]

I see no reference to the word evolution here in either instance. What is required is a scientific explanation. Since Creation Scientists have explanations, they should be able to present them, provided they can defend them. No problem.

You did not see his entire web page, he talked extensively about evolution and how critical it was to Biology. He talked about how he believe no one could be a doctor and not believe in Evolution including the human origin. His question was very targeted on acknowledging human origins through evolution with no wiggle room for any supernatural explanation. There was a reason the Justice Department acted against this guy and he eventually caved. To me there is a lot of stealth bigotry in Biology departments just as there is in journalists and law departments. In Biology, evolution is the key tool that is used and these grandiose statements about evolution is part of it.

[Eternal_Bear]

You are misinterpreting Einstein and Bohr. Neither were creationists.( Even Mao Zedong would refer to God but there is no evidence, he was a deist.) Einstein was referring to Quantum physics which is based on probablities. He sought a deeper underlying theory of the universe that would unify all the known forces. I assume he would subscribe to String Theory today which postulates other dimensions as well as parallel universes.

[Eternal_Bear]

You are misinterpreting Einstein and Bohr. Neither were creationists.( Even Mao Zedong would refer to God but there is no evidence, he was a deist.) Einstein was referring to Quantum physics which is based on probablities. He sought a deeper underlying theory of the universe that would unify all the known forces. I assume he would subscribe to String Theory today which postulates other dimensions as well as parallel universes.

[Right Wing Professor]

I could absolutely understand Biology and have no concept of what evolution is. I could easily understand cell differentiation and never know anything about Darwin.

Nope. To understand differentiation, you need to understand developmental genes, and you can't understand why developmental genes are the way they are without evolution.

[ZULU]

Mendel formulated the first laws of genetics. He proved that some traits were inherited, some were dominant and some were recessive and some some traits combined to form a new distinct phenotype. If traits were not inherited but solely due to environmental factors, evolution as Darwin proposed it was not possible. Mendel's laws showed that if a NEW trait appeared, it could be handed down to successive generations.

Evolutionary theory is based on the transmission of new traits, which confer a positive selective advantage, to succeeding gnerations.

[Right Wing Professor]

You're selectively quoting. Ayala last year, in a subsequent paper, identified a systematic error in molecular clocks, and gave suggestions about how it might be avoided. This hardly sounds like somone who rejects their use!

[Sloth]

Evolutionary theory is based on the transmission of new traits, which confer a positive selective advantage, to succeeding gnerations.

Yes, evolution is dependent on both 1.) the acquisition of new traits, and 2.) the process of natural selection to impart a survival advantage to certain traits.

That would seem to imply that some understanding of genetics is required to understand evolution, and I'd agree. Problem is, you were arguing the other way before -- that evolution is needed to understand genetics.

[the invisib1e hand]

i don't think any thinking person of any religion who examines the evidence can argue about species adaptation (or evolution, if you wish) to conditions. Even a thinking Christian will agree that 'natural selection' (or 'survival of the fittest') is a natural consequence of the fall.

but as for the origin of the species, I'm thinking evolution was recognized as bankrupt a long time ago.

[Tribune7]

People rarely doubt their mechanic, nor do they doubt their doctor, or a police detective when they make determinations based on available evidence.

Doctors and detectives are regularly doubted and attacked. Think of malpractice suits and criminal trials.

And there are scientists who disbelieve Darwinian evolution -- Behe is a notable one. Should he be attacked?

[Dimensio]

You left out the fact that Newton's theories have actually been disproven.

[stanz]

Evolution is an attempt to tie known facts together, it does NOT serve as a foundation to those facts.

And what are the known facts?

[Jim Noble]

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.

I am not sure how you would test the theory that macro changes (offspring of gill breathers having lungs, by mutation) are possible.

But let's not quibble, I agree with most of what you say. Evolution is a theory, it is scientific to the extent that it is testable, I understand what you mean by "it is a valid scientific theory" and I agree with what you mean.

The common useage, however is "valid scientific theory" = "true", which leads to statements like the one I quoted from the Yale grad student.

If macro evolution did not occur, the essence of biology would not change one whit, which was my point.