Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed

Washinton Post ^ | Wednesday, May 29, 2002 | Michael A. Fletcher

[Gladwin]

Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.

In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....

[Dimensio]

Exactly where am I "limiting reality"? I was just offering up an explanation for what is considered "natural" by science.

[EBUCK]

I was being "flip" with that paragraph because the process is so damned natural and obvious to me that I cannot understand anyone denying that it takes place.

In order for scientists to make a new fruit fly by way of genetic manipulation they would have to...

1. Modify one (or more) then breed that modification into the population and hope it doesn't kill them all by making them weaker.

2. Repeat until the captive fruit fly population is sufficiently different from the control population to call them a new species.

The real problem is that there are so many mutation possibilities that to try them all would take lifetimes and most of the mutations would seem to be ineffectual.

Now I could argue that a lot of the bio-eng veggies we are getting lately could be considered the first real step in manual speciation by way of gene splicing. And I think that gene splicing will soon produce some very odd species aimed at feeding the over populated world.

I must admit that outside of observation and fossils there are no reproducable experimental proofs to back up the Evo-Theory yet. And unitl the theory is proven (prolly not with our lifetimes) I am inclined to go with what I can see and that is that evolution, at least in the micro scale, does in fact take place and that macro (whether halting, lumbering or skipping) logically explains long term speciation.

EBUCK

[Dimensio]

And unitl the theory is proven

By definition, this can never happen.

[EBUCK]

I do not (think)...

I am in the process of building up my tollerance to iocane powder, hence the lack of proof reading...(look at all the pretty colors)

EBUCK

[r9etb]

I was just offering up an explanation for what is considered "natural" by science.

If you're saying that reality and "natural causes" could include God, very well. If you're saying they cannot include God, there is no scientific basis for the claim.

[r9etb]

In order for scientists to make a new fruit fly by way of genetic manipulation they would have to...

... act like Intelligent Designers....

[OBAFGKM]

"What you say is true, but it isn't science, it's faith."

Well, when I was a kid and mixed odd chemicals, added energy in various forms, and waited to see what happened, something strange would happen pretty frequently. We had to evacuate the house once. I didn't do that one again. That's science.

[AndrewC]

I'm glad you understand the distinction.

Evolutionary Biologist Darwinist Zoologist

Evolutionary Biologist Darwinist Zoologist
 
A controversial, tough-minded and witty defender of science, Dawkins is widely recognized as the leader of the new Darwinists. He is Oxford University's first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science.

Through his numerous books and lectures, Dawkins tells us that organisms exist so that genes can propagate and that human beings cannot rationally exclude themselves from this Darwinian theory. Like all organisms, the ultimate function of human life is simply to pass DNA on to future generations. Dawkins invites us to explore the power, beauty and mystery behind a Darwinian understanding of life.

[EBUCK]

Matter of fact, God's word has been proven true so many times only a fool would doubt that all of it is true. However, the world is populated with many fools, as you can see on this very thread.

Proven? How? Show me the data. Show me proof.

EBUCK

[Dimensio]

No.

God could only be considered "natural" if this God were constrained to the universe and its physical properties. If God exists, in whole or in part, outside of the universe in some fashion then God is not "natural" as is understood by science.

That does not mean that God isn't real; it only means that the scientific method cannot be applied to God or effects caused by God.

[EBUCK]

By definition, this can never happen.

By definition a theory cannot be proved? Care to explain that?

EBUCK

[ArGee]

No, if the scientific method cannot prove (or support the notion) that a designer is required it only means that there is no scientific evidence of a designer. Science isn't required to invent explanations for every little gap in human knowledge; just because it can't conclude intelligent design doesn't mean it has to come up with a non-intelligent source -- saying "there isn't enough information available for an explanation" is valid.

If I agree with this, will you agree that the rational implication is that any explanation that addresses all of what we know is equally valid. i.e. you can believe directed pan-spermia, G-d, little green men, or whatever you want. We have no way to challenge any of your assertions. Would that sit well with you?

Shalom.

[Dimensio]

By definition a theory cannot be proved? Care to explain that?

Simple. There must always be a means to disprove/falsify a given theory. As long as the potential for falsification exists, you haven't "proven" your theory -- you've merely offered supporting evidence for the truth of its statements.

[OBAFGKM]

"In other words, does the fact that two fruitflys can mate and produce an offspring (a fruitfly) that could not mate with its parents actually justify the idea that a frog can turn into a cow?"

It's not that the hybrid fruitfly couldn't mate with it's parents -- it was not a fruitful fruitfly. The parents, although viable enough each with its own strain, could not mate to produce a viable strain of hybrid. They had drifted genetically apart sufficiently that they were incapable of transmitting their genes to a line of progeny. That is, they were in the early stages of speciation.

Give it a couple of hundred million generations and the progeny of each strain separately may well be as distinct as a cow and a frog.

[ArGee]

I don't think Christian theologists worry about it much any more. Serious scholarship isn't what it used to be among them.

Ain't THAT the truth.

Christianity has been paganized, at least in the west.

Shalom.

[Dimensio]

If I agree with this, will you agree that the rational implication is that any explanation that addresses all of what we know is equally valid. i.e. you can believe directed pan-spermia, G-d, little green men, or whatever you want. We have no way to challenge any of your assertions. Would that sit well with you?

Sure. Just don't call it science, because it isn't (note that this is not the same as saying that it is false). Science is about formulating hypothesis based on observation, not making guesses to account for a lack of information.

[Junior]

The problem with mathematical probabilities in regards to proving or disproving evolution is that one is dealing with an incomplete data set; probabilities generated from such a set are perforce in error and cannot be trusted.

[AndrewC]

Well, when I was a kid and mixed odd chemicals, added energy in various forms, and waited to see what happened, something strange would happen pretty frequently. We had to evacuate the house once. I didn't do that one again. That's science.

Yes, I did that too when I was young. I was given a chemistry set for Christmas in order to save whatever was in any container in the house. I was banished from the house on Christmas day. Hydrogen sulfide is easy to make. But the mystery of what would happen was due to the ignorance of the rules involved. Chemistry is not done that way as a science. What you have described is closer to Alchemy.

[EBUCK]

... act like Intelligent Designers....

Exactly, because we are intelligent designers in an attemp to reverse engineer the universe. But just because we expiriment with man-made gravity and anti-gravity does not mean they are the result of intelligent design. And just because we can create electricity does not mean that electricity was intelligently invented in the first place.

EBUCK

[ArGee]

I must admit that outside of observation and fossils there are no reproducable experimental proofs to back up the Evo-Theory yet.

Do you also admit that it is nearly impossible to remove personal bias from ones interpretation of the fossil record?

And unitl the theory is proven (prolly not with our lifetimes) I am inclined to go with what I can see and that is that evolution, at least in the micro scale, does in fact take place

I would agree, although probably not in the same way you mean it. I would suggest that it is not mutation that changes a species on the micro scale to have things like longer beaks or higher slam-dunks. Rather I think it is environmental changes that modify the sample of the population that survives. That is, the number of bugs resistant to DDT that could have originally been produced from the gene pool never changed, just the number of bugs that survived and bred. DDT resistent bugs didn't "appear" they just had a reason to become more prevalent. If DDT ever goes completely away then the population sample will eventually revert to the same mix of resistant and non-resistant bugs that existed before its use.

and that macro (whether halting, lumbering or skipping) logically explains long term speciation.

It can, but I still posit that the details of the mechanism must be demonstrated before I am called an idiot for being skeptical.

Shalom.