Posted on 08/24/2008 2:16:12 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.
But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.
Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.
(Click link for full article)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Don’t change the subject. We are discussing teaching beginning students where biologists are coming from.
Of course there are scientists who disagree on just about any aspect of the field. That’s how we grow. And it’s irrelevant to teaching the basics of what biologists use as a working base.
first teach calculus, then physics, then chemistry and then finally biology and students will realize that most biologists don’t think, period.
Don’t bother answering. You are obviously a Temple of Darwin devotee who is willing to use force to prevent Darwin’s fairytale from having to stand on its own two feet. You are the reason why the time for debate has ended.
Preposterous. Science is about fact, not what a biologist "thinks". Anything of the sort is conjecture.
You want them to learn what biologists don’t think, which is silly.
Incorrect. Remove the suposition that evolution is the only theory and proceed with fact. Verifiable fact.
if he wanted debate, he would allow it in the schools.
==Of course there are scientists who disagree on just about any aspect of the field. That’s how we grow.
Nope. If a scientist or teacher publicly disagrees with Darwin’s fairytale, they risk their career. How is that helping science grow?
They will never answer these kinds of questions. They will say “Now, now...these kinds of questions have no place in school.” Etc, etc. What a bunch of losers.
Instead he hides behind lying statements like “We need to teach children what biologists believe.” It’s hard to get any more dishonest than that. Notice, when I applied the same logic to teaching both sides of “human-caused” global warming he yelped “Don’t change the subject!” What a bunch of charlatans.
Jumping genes. One very small example.
The scientific theory of evolution was not frozen in amber by Darwin.
Science explains how we got here.
Theology explains WHY we are here.
Consensus? Or Belief/Faith in mans designs.
Does right or wrong depend on the number of people whom believe it?
A lot of people believe homosexuality is good, a lot of people believe isLame is good, a lot of people believed Adolph was good.
Even in a minority of ONE, the Truth is still the Truth.~M. Ghandi
Can't think of any not on the Discovery Institute's dime.
How old are the pyramids?
I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying that of course there is controversy and that I was also saying what in a basic course we teach what the members of the field think.
It seems to me that is fairly simple. Learn the basics, then if you so desire, go on and study more, then challenge whatever you then disagree with.
The creation/ID argument is philosophy & religion, not science. However, as I understand it, C/ID says that things happened in the same way, but God caused it to happen that way. I don't see that there is necessarily a conflict.
Approximately 4,500 years.
==I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying that of course there is controversy and that I was also saying what in a basic course we teach what the members of the field think.
The “basic course” should include those scientists who hold to the only viable alternative to godless evolution, namely Creation/ID. Don’t you think that should be included in a course on the basics???
Pushing for a theocracy, eh? Going to overthrow the constitution while you're at it?
Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.
Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these “major groups”? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as “modern”; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.
Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not “evidence” for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - “evo-devo” - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. “Faked” drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel’s drawings, as claimed.
Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
A: The notion of a “missing link” is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that “supposed ancestors” are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!
Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.
Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing “raw material” for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.
Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to “justify materialistic claims” is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.
Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
A: What does Wells mean by “Darwin's theory of evolution”? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's “10 Questions” fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists’ “misrepresenting the facts.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.