Evolution education down to a science on Web [debunking big time!]

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 29 March 2004 | David Perlman

[PatrickHenry]

As controversies simmer across the country over teaching evolution, scientists at UC Berkeley are taking the offensive against the modern-day foes of Charles Darwin.

Experts at the university's Museum of Paleontology have created a new Web site designed to offer beleaguered classroom teachers support and guidance through the often slippery attacks they can encounter teaching natural selection and other concepts.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm dubious about both Berkeley and the San Francisco Chronicle, but even so, this is an important effort. Again, in case you missed it in the article, here's the website they've developed: Understanding Evolution, an evolution website for teachers.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and some other science topics like cosmology. Long-time list members get all pings, but can request evo-only status. New additions will be evo-only, but can request all pings. FReepmail me to be added or dropped. Specify all pings or you'll get evo-pings only.]

[samtheman]

Actually, the website looks quite good. They've done a good job of breaking down a complex and not-well-understood idea into a series of clear pieces of information. I haven't read everything on the site so far, but so far it looks well done.

[ml/nj]

It isn't obvious to me that they bother to deal with the numerous contradictions. This is science?

ML/NJ

[AntiGuv]

Actually, it appears that this is (as intended) a teaching aid for the instruction of children. Perhaps the alleged "contradictions" you find intriguing are better addressed here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Another web site chock-full of intelligent design. I like that.

[Ted]

Lies begin in the 2nd page of the first section, Evolution 101:

"...gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record..."

The fossil record supports creation, not evolution. There's a complete lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record. An objective person should look at the fossil record and ask "why the total lack of intermediary forms?".

Figures this would come out of Berkley. Carry on.

[ThinkPlease]

The fossil record supports creation, not evolution. There's a complete lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record. An objective person should look at the fossil record and ask "why the total lack of intermediary forms?".

Objective people look at the fossil record all of the time, and don't say this. See the Transition Fossils FAQ, for just an inital look at the transitions available.

[elfman2]

Nice posts and links!

[ASA Vet]

Thank you. I saved it to my favorites for later.
I'll leave now before the super-naturalists arrive with their usual lack of civility.

[Modernman]

There's a complete lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record.

At the end of the day, every fossil is an intermediary form. All species are changing over time.

[SedVictaCatoni]

It always mystifies me that people perceive such a huge gulf between evolution and what is termed 'intelligent design'. The middle ground of "divine evolution" contradicts nobody but the literal Genesists, who are essentially hopeless.

The analogous situation is like a loaf of bread sitting in the kitchen: the Genesists suppose that it must have been bought at the store; the pure-evolutionists suppose that it must have assembled itself in the oven and spontaneously baked). Is it so odd to suppose that the loaf was in fact baked in the oven, but that somebody mixed the ingredients and looked in on it once in a while to see how it was doing?

Those with faith are free to perceive evolution as a divinely originated and directed process; those without are free to roll their eyes and perceive it as a random series of events. But the scientific evidence looks exactly the same either way, because it's a theological question, so there's no curriculum to fight over.

[jonno]

bump

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But the website doesn't deal with the controversy over the books of Macabees or Esdras. /sarcasm

[ColdSteelTalon]

At the end of the day, every fossil is an intermediary form. All species are changing over time.

So you say that evolution is self-evident? that's silly. Your talking about a religion my freind. Transitional forms have to be shown not accepted from nothing. With science you have to have hard evidence.

[Modernman]

So you say that evolution is self-evident?

When creationists talk about transitional fossils, they seem to be demanding that there be fossils that are somehow half horse and half bird, or whatever. It's not that simple in real life. The line between one species and a resulting species is blurry. At what point did a feathered dinosaur stop being a dinosaur and become a bird?

Transitional forms have to be shown not accepted from nothing

What would you define as a transitional form?

[forsnax5]

Very nice site!

It even has a summation of the arguments we see here:

[ColdSteelTalon]

The line between one species and a resulting species is blurry. At what point did a feathered dinosaur stop being a dinosaur and become a bird?

Assuming of course that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Evolutionists used to say that were reptiles. And of course you assume that one species gives rise to another, somthing that we have not actually seen in nature or even the fossil record. To say that evolution exists because of the fossil record is like saying that hot air balloons must be made of nylon because they fly.

My point is that evolutionary science is not a real science at all but theories and even guesses that change constantly. True science is based on empirical evidence.

Psychology is another example of a qasi science.

[Modernman]

LOL. That cartoon describes creationist debating tactics nicely.

[Modernman]

My point is that evolutionary science is not a real science at all but theories and even guesses that change constantly.

This old debate again. Hate to tell you this, but all science consists of theories (and even guesses) that change constantly. Every honest scientist accepts that nothing in science is written in stone. Theories rise, are altered or fall over time. There are no sacred cows in science.

Psychology is another example of a qasi science.

Huh? Psychology studies mental processes and behavior. There have been plenty of mistakes along the way- Freudian psychotherapy is turning out to be a dead end. However, psychology as a scientific discipline is no different than any other area of science. Also, psychology really only became formalized over the last few centuries. It's only logical that it would be less far along than, say, physics.