Despite Scopes, Evolution Still on Trial

AP ^ | 7/9/05 | Bill Poovey

[R. Scott]

Very true.

[Dr.Hilarious]

Good comeback. Next time, maybe you should read what I wrote before you start telling me what I experience personally, 'kay?

[R. Scott]

Why did you see the word "creation" in my post and assume i was specifying a specific religion?

In the context of this board, it was an easy assumption. So far Hindus and practitioners of American Indian religions are generally silent on the subject.
I have no problem with religion being taught as religion. I have no problem with science being taught as science.
I have a major problem with religion being taught as science or science being taught as religion.

[Matchett-PI]

"I have a major problem with religion being taught as science or science being taught as religion."

Ditto that! bttt

[D-fendr]

I still don’t understand how the lack of religion can be called a religion.

Yes, I know what you mean. But it depends on how you define religion. If you define it as the study of who we really are and our relationship to the cosmos, then one can have a religion that includes a diety or one that does not.

Atheism is a religion in that sense. It has a metaphysics, a meta-view of the universe, what it is, who we are, what is real and what is not - including and transcending tangible reality. Just like any other religion.

Thanks for your reply...

[Oztrich Boy]

I have no problem of our schools talking about ozygen as a theory, but they should also discuss phlogiston just as seriously.

[D-fendr]

thank you very much for posting the difinition. If I could break it down a bit. This part:

change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual… that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

I think is pretty hard science, yes? As is:

embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types)

However, I wonder if we could agree that we are on less firm ground, and more theoretical, when we approach:

the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

Another definition that covers the same but a little less ground is:

Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated by geographic barriers.

Now here's one that goes popular and broad:

In common parlance the word "evolution" is often used as shorthand for the modern synthesis of evolution, including the theory that all extant species share a common ancestor. It also is often used to describe the mechanisms through which evolution acts to change populations over time.

Now which definition should we teach as science, and how much should we classify as theory?

In addition consider whether we should teach the view that "Evolution (plus whatever theory for an organic starting point you wish) completely describes the origin and development of all life on earth."   "Completely" being the key word here - infering that the forces attributed to evolution provide the sole teleology of life.

My own personal view is that I don't object to teaching "evolution." The key is what that means and what else is or is not taught. Thanks very much for your post.

[trebb]

I'm curious, if we evolved, instead of being created, why would higher life forms need two sexes? It would seem that being able to procreate independently would be more efficient. What does evolution preach on how this came to be? Does it address it? If not, why not? I don't waste my time on evolution because it does me no good (What benefit is there in pursuing this so-far unprovable theory except to try to disprove God?)and it seems that when convenient, the hard-core "those-religious-people are-really-screwed-up-because-they believe-in-an-all-powerful-God" evolutionist crowd either makes "educated guesses" or just decides that what was once thought necessary to prove evolution (like the now not-necessary missing link) is no longer necessary because......well because.

I guess the bright side for us believers is that if we're right we get the ultimate reward. If we're wrong we just led good lives and tried not to do harm to our fellows. The best non-believers can hope for is that they are the result of one heck of a lot of incredible accidents and it all ends when they die. The worst they can expect is the ultimate punishment. I like my odds a lot better.

Any truth to the rumor that Carl Sagan, after a life of thinking that scientists were the closest thing to God the earth had to offer, repented on his death bed?

[wyattearp]

Now which definition should we teach as science, and how much should we classify as theory?

The best way to answer that question is "yes". Those are all science, and all good descriptions of different aspects of the theory of evolution (with one glaring exception, which I will deal with below). I think that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to science. A scientific theory is as "high" in the hierarchy as it goes. Theories do not graduate to facts. Facts are used to support a theory, or to dispute it.

In addition consider whether we should teach the view that "Evolution (plus whatever theory for an organic starting point you wish) completely describes the origin and development of all life on earth."

No. That one is wrong. Evolution does not describe the origin of life on earth in any way. It describes what happened to life after it was created. Exactly how life was created is not addressed by the theory of evolution in any way. This is a common misconception.

'Abiogenesis' is an attempt to explain how life could have come into being naturally. Abiogenesis and Evolution are not dependent upon one another, nor are they mutually exclusive. They are not related in any way. They are two totally different things. This is a mistake that most creationists make when discussing the theory of evolution.

[D-fendr]

It would seem that being able to procreate independently would be more efficient.

I think it's known as the "Dueling Banjos Effect."

{^_^}

[elkfersupper]

I don't waste my time on evolution because it does me no good (What benefit is there in pursuing this so-far unprovable theory except to try to disprove God?)

Excuse me, but that's just plain, well......kooky.

[trebb]

Why kooky? Darwin (the father of evolution and natural selection) was a hard-core atheist and made no bones about pushing his theories as a substitute for God.

[elkfersupper]

My faith is strong enough to not be threatened by any man. Yours?

[bobdsmith]

I guess the bright side for us believers is that if we're right we get the ultimate reward. If we're wrong we just led good lives and tried not to do harm to our fellows.

Don't be so sure there. If you are wrong Cthulhu may consume your soul for believing in a being more mighty than him.

The best non-believers can hope for is that they are the result of one heck of a lot of incredible accidents and it all ends when they die. The worst they can expect is the ultimate punishment. I like my odds a lot better.

Unless God doesn't judge people on whether they believe in him, or even rewards those who didn't make assumptions about his character.

[D-fendr]

Evolution does not describe the origin of life on earth

Yes, I know. That's why I stated it as "Evolution (plus whatever theory for an organic starting point you wish) " in my description. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

most creationists

I should also make clear I don't consider myself a creationist.

I think that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to science.

Once again I should have been clearer. I was hoping to draw a spectrum from what is more clearly supported by data and what becomes more further removed, such as variations on interpretation of the data into competing theories such as punctuated evolution, etc. The closer we get to the first end, the more agreement we find, the data more clearly supports our conclusions.

Those are all science, and all good descriptions of different aspects of the theory of evolution

I believe these two:

"all extant species share a common ancestor" and;

"Evolution (and abiogenesis) completely describes the origin and development of all life on earth."

are on the farther end of the spectrum than the other aspects, requiring more of a reach outside the supporting data. Also, as I included previously, the teleology resulting from current theory as usually is far from solidly proven - if it can be from science alone. This leads to error affecting knowledge, and reality, reaching outside biology and science. Our goal should always be truth. A mistake some evolutionists make is to think, and teach, that all that can be known can be known by science. This is not true.

So, we differ that all the definitions listed should be taught as fact - theory conclusively supported by fact if you wish. I would settle, perhaps, if it were also taught that the limits of the scientific method do not correspond with the limits of nature or reality; and, that there is a world of knowledge that includes and transcends science that is the proper sphere for placing the empirical data of biology and anthropology in proper context.

thanks for your reply.

[johnnyb_61820]

Gravity is not just a theory, it is also a law.

As a theory, it has been completely changed out several times now, with each new theory invalidating the old one completely.

As a law, it has been modified by relativity, but on a general basis the calculation holds true.

Science is thought of well because of its "public" nature -- anyone can reproduce the experiments and get the same results. However, this only holds true for empirical hypotheses and to a lesser extent the generalized laws that come from them.

What makes a theory into a law? Absolutely nothing -- they are completely different classes of ideas. However, laws are directly testable, because to be a law requires that you specify a relationship mathematically. A theory is simply a conceptual model. Theories are not subject to direct test the way hypotheses are. Why? Because ultimately we cannot in principle deduce what is occurring behind the scenes on empirical evidence alone. It requires interpretations or a priori assumptions.

Now, as far as biological laws are concerned, I am not aware of creationists ever faulting laws or empirical evidence. What is faulted is the interpretation of that evidence.

Likewise, while no practicing scientist is suggesting that NASA change its gravitational calculations, the theory of gravity itself is still very much an open question.

So, what laws have been proposed on the basis of evolutionary theory? Most of the ones attributed to "evolution" are actually in the field of population genetics, and, given that genetics was actually founded by a creationist I find it ironic that genetics is where most of modern research is going and yet somehow "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution".

[trebb]

My faith is strong enough to not be threatened. It is also my duty to try to convince non-believers. Who knows who will view any of the threads posted - I have received comments from several who were not part of the current "debate" with indications that they have been affected by some of the arguments put forth. Even if I don't manage to be an effective witness to those that insist that God's Word must succumb to Man's glory, I might make have a positive effect on others I don't even know about.

At any rate, if only the secularists/atheists have their say, only their point of view gets perused.

[R. Scott]

If you define it as the study of who we really are and our relationship to the cosmos, then one can have a religion that includes a diety or one that does not.

I define religion as the worship of a Higher Deity. Even the root of the word “religion” refers to this - religio ( religare), meaning a bond between man and the gods.
Meanings change, and we have seen groups change the meaning of words even in the last few decades. “Gay” used to mean “happy”. “Hero” used to denote someone who put their life in danger to aid another. “Religion” also seems to be going through a change to become an all encompassing word with little meaning left.

[RadioAstronomer]

the LAW of gravity is pretty well documented mathmatically

Let me post my example of gravity:

A little history here: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

Where:

F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m₁ equals the mass of the first object
m₂ equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10^-11 N*m²/kg² (which is still being refined and tested today)

(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)

Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.

A few of the problems are:

It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.

Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.

A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.

[RadioAstronomer]

Any truth to the rumor that Carl Sagan, after a life of thinking that scientists were the closest thing to God the earth had to offer, repented on his death bed?

No. And he did not think that scientists were the closest thing to God.