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.

[highlander_UW]

Read the post again and see if you can really find that in there.

OK, let's see...

There are also no great scientists that dismiss evolution, because holding status of great scientist demands they acknowledge the known truth of the matter.

It sure looks like you're excluding all scientists from greatness by definition if they do not accede to what you state is a demand to acknowledge what you believe is "known truth". Yup, I see it in there. Perhaps you didn't mean it the way you wrote it. I try not to read between the lines too much because often one reads things in.

[spunkets]

The known truth of the matter does not depend on what I believe. It is also unique. If I'm dead the truth remains and nothing else changes. What part of that don't you get?

[highlander_UW]

The known truth of the matter does not depend on what I believe. It is also unique. If I'm dead the truth remains and nothing else changes. What part of that don't you get?

It's not a matter of what I get or don't get, what you're not tracking on is that your own statement does not allow for the possibility that there just may be "great scientists" on either side of the issues. There remains the possibility that both sides are wrong in some ways, or that one side is correct and the other wrong...but the assertion that only one side has "great scientists" is short sighted at best.

[Virginia-American]

The problem with "evolution" (whatever it is since "evolution" seems to evole too) is that it is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Any concrete examples?

[Fledermaus]

Evolution is as provable as a Democrat with brains.

[Virginia-American]

The Wahhabis of the Christian world are the only people making an issue of evolution.

The real Wahhabis are too: Theodosius Dobzhansky's classic Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

[Virginia-American]

..and in the process they have thrown out and refused to deal with any contradictory evidence.After all it is much easier to call names and bluff your way through than deal with these contradictions.

Any concrete examples?

[Virginia-American]

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

So, I guess the fact that genetically-based phylogenies track the previously-known familiy trees is just one huge mass of coincidences?

What explanation, other than common descent, allows one to make true generalizations like

"If a retrotransposon, pseudogene, etc, is found in both whales and cows, it will also be found in hippos"

"If a retrotransposon, etc, is found in both black bears and brown bears, it will also be found in polar bears"

In both chimps and baboons, then also people and gorillas

In both dogs and cats, then also bears.

And so on and so on. In every known case (known ot me, at least), the predictions based on evolution have proven to be true.

[GladesGuru]

"insult others"

I think not. Did I disagree - certainly. Did I use a bit of irony - certainly.

Ironic disagreement is hardly insulting.

As for my being wrong - certainly. We are all allowed one mistake, and I had mine some years ago. Help! What's the html symbol for "tongue-in-cheek" off?

[GladesGuru]

For what it is worth, until recently, science has defined as a set of rules. The last one of which was that science recognized No Authorities.

The reason for that was that science struggled with great difficulty against the authority of the medieval Church and the governments of those days.

Today, as then, free inquiry (the essence of science) is antithetical to authority. Hence, science can recognize no one as an 'authority' - only the hypothesis, the data, the theory are important.

Who says what is not importnat; only what is said and whether the data supports what is being said.

[Virginia-American]

Grand conclusions on the meaning of existence should be left to the philosophers and theologians.

Now there's a bunch with a great track record!

Reminds me of a joke from college: "Math is the cheapest science - all you need is paper, a pencil and a wastebasket. No, philosophy is cheaper, you don't need the wastebasket"

[Virginia-American]

You can completely understand how and what developmental genes are and have absolutely no concept of evolution.

Until the transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals were discovered, it was a mystery why the earbones in mammals move the way they do during embryonic development. Now it's much less of a mystery.

Experiments with chick embryos show that there are genes for teeth in them. Dinosaur-like, reptilian teeth. Any idea how they got there? Well, they inherited them from their parents, who got them from their parents,...

[Conspiracy Guy]

I know. I can help but be irrelevent.

CG

[bzrd]

“Taking chem w/o calc will not lead to knowledge and understanding of the physics involved and allow one to work with it on an intimate level. It is just memorization with no depth to the understanding. For instance, why the sky is blue. There's the simple explaination and there's the detailed one which allows one to answer many more seemingly unrelated questions. “

That all may be true. However, I did manage to be one of the ‘lucky fellows’ to do so well through the course of one semester I was allowed to opt-out of the final in biochem.

What any of this has to do with the debate, is beyond me.

“Evolution isn't stressed much, but advancing though bio, biochem and med lit leads one to learn it w/o even being aware it is part of it. “

Well then, you agree with me. It isn’t stressed that much, when you get down to it. Which begs the question of whether it would actually matter if you considered life to be a product of chance or design.

Brian.

[Tribune7]

Some have conjured up rough sketches of how RNA was the initial genetic code.

Some once believed certain incantations would turn lead into gold.

Those sketches can, or may, end up as working hypothesis.

"can or may" is a long way from "probably"

[spunkets]

"Well then, you agree with me. It isn’t stressed that much, when you get down to it. Which begs the question of whether it would actually matter if you considered life to be a product of chance or design.

No I do not. It does matter and so does calc, amongst others things. There is no design apparant whatsoever and simply dismissing things as chance is wrong.

[spunkets]

" "can or may" is a long way from "probably""

Can, or may include many possibilities, some of which are outright wrong and others that are more probable. Sometimes the most probable can be ID'd.

Faith is limited to those things that can never be proven.

[PatrickHenry]

Faith is limited to those things that can never be proven.

Lots of things can't be proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because at least in principle, a counter-example might be discovered. When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by the evidence, the most appropriate word for acceptance of the theory is usually "confidence," not "faith."

In philosophy, the word "faith" is used to describe belief in things that are unsupported by verifiable evidence or (as in math and geometry) logical proof.

[Tribune7]

When you assume an unproven concept is "probably" true you are expressing faith.

[bzrd]

[you] “Evolution isn't stressed much, but advancing though bio, biochem and med lit leads one to learn it w/o even being aware it is part of it. “

[me] "Well then, you agree with me. It isn’t stressed that much, when you get down to it. Which begs the question of whether it would actually matter if you considered life to be a product of chance or design.

[you again] No I do not. It does matter and so does calc, amongst others things. There is no design apparant whatsoever and simply dismissing things as chance is wrong.

[me] Well…which way is the wind blowing here? It either matters or it doesn’t. I say it doesn’t and your own words indicate that you agree with me…sort of.

As for the calc thing, you assert that it is a requirement for a good understanding in chem, and I seem to have managed pretty well without it. Even beat out a few of my calc-classmates.

What does it mean? I don’t have a clue.

Who was it? Not Gould but the other guy, who said ‘biology was the study of living things that give the appearance of being designed’.

It seems to me that this fellow was saying that design in was apparent [if I understand what ‘apparent’ means] in biology, but that, somehow, we have managed to prove otherwise.

It would seem you and he have a difference of opinion as to whether design is apparent in biology or not.

Myself, I think biology has design written all over it. And I think it takes more than sophistry or word games to dismiss it.

Brian.