Creationism & Evolution In American Public Schools

[Veridicus]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1533189' date='May 18 2008, 11:02 PM'][i]Very well said.[/i] My BS was in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

I have a question for you.

You said: "The only problem is that the experiment did NOT actually show that these short flights (and only like 4 of 80 bugs actually 'flew') had any differential reproductive advantage over non-flying stoneflies."

What if an old predator had an easier time catching the non-flying ones? What if an environmental change favored the flying ones for a period of time? More importantly, did they even need a reproductive advantage? What if it was plain old genetic/allelic drift? There does not have to be an advantage. Random selection can result in dramatic evolutionary changes.[/quote]


I mean allelic drift occurs, but is more seriously associated with sub-optimal effective breeding populations (which is why island species are often so funky looking!). Where populations are larger and survival demands are more consistent throughout the population, reproductive advantage is a very important factor. Furthermore, allelic drift (random changes independent of advantage) could hardly explain the massive adaptive radiation observed with the development of insect flight. I think my biggest beef with that experiment was that so much HAD to be speculative and inferential...but it was presented as such 'strong' proof. The inferences were NOT TESTED; they were simply accepted. Just didnt' satisfy me. I felt like I was being fed bad science (fortunately I HAD been taught earlier on what good and bad science were!) and they assumed I would assimilate it into my biological worldview because I was a graduating senior. It seemed like the professor was trying to dogmatize an inference...that's not good science. Period.

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1533189' date='May 18 2008, 11:02 PM'][i]Very well said.[/i] My BS was in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
IMHO, I think some scientists are so desperate to have answers for everything that they would rather be satisfied with shoddy inferences than admit that they don't know everything. I don't think they are the majority... but they do stand out.

Do you also see this attitude and do you think it feeds to problem?[/quote]

That is [i]exactly [/i]the problem. I suppose I've just become a little dissolusioned with some of the sciences as I've seen more and more of the evidence for various theories. I mean the stuff I learned in General Chemistry my freshman year were presented as wide-arching practical proofs...but in the real world most of those equations yield rough estimates at best. We have to determine 'constants' for every equation just to make them usable... I suppose it was my juvenile naivete to assume that scientific knowledge had some sort of infallible, trustable nature to it...probably because it had always been presented that way. And while I think most of the scientists in the field take their science very seriously, it just can't be underappreciated that even the epistemological approach of the modern scientific method has its limitations to veracity. It just bothers me that 'science' is presented as hard facts when so often these facts turn out to be an accumulation of inferences from various sources with potential biased interests.

I still have faith in the science community to make progress and improve our understanding of the world. I just feel that if I was mislead and mis-fed weak arguments for scientific knowledge at an accredited institution...how much more wary should the general public be before they unquestionably accept information from that [i]infallible [/i]source known to the newspapers as 'science.' I mean you cant' turn on the tv without "scientifically proven to regrow hair" or "scientists have shown" and the public justs accepts EVERYTHING they hear as inscrutable truth...without ever digging deeper.

I think my biggest pet-peeve is uneducated (in the sciences, anyway) people using technical knowledge as a basis for an argument that is balanced upon a priori truths about the nature of knowing something without due concern for that knowledge's inherent fallibility and source. I mean I have had creation/evolution discussions with people who tried to argue genetics and evolution with me...and they know NOTHING about what they are talking about except for what they heard Barbara Walters or Bill Mauer or Tom Cruise say the night before. We live in a society of self-proclaimed know-it-alls who are convinced their opinions matter and who don't appreciate the nature of knowing anything...and unfortunately I feel there are a number of scientists who don't mind pandering to this demand for information...whether what they are providing is shoddy or not...who's gonna know the difference, right?

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Veridicus

[dairygirl4u2c]

the main reason i say you're blasheming God JIMSH, etc, is jsut to give you a taste of your own medicine.
the other reason, is because i sincerely believe you are blaspheming God, with a shred of doubt reservation, by blaspheming how his creation was created, biboloatry etc, based on pride.

truth is truth... it doesn't matter if it comes from the bible or if it is something not in the bible as long as it doesn't cotradict even...

even if it's discovered by science, denying or calling the truth evil is nothing short of blasphemy.

objectively, what you say and think and such, especially given teh evidence, is a blasphemy. i'd say it's my opinion, but remembering my shred of doubt, it's not an opinion. subjectively, you seem sincere, so while it'd be a blasphemy, God surely won't hold you accountable. i'm not sure how you can keep this up though, without your only motive being pride... and then you will be objectively blaspheming God.

even if it's discovered by science, denying or calling the truth evil is nothing short of blasphemy.

Edited May 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1533161' date='May 18 2008, 09:58 PM']I just earned my BS in Biology from a school wth a solid Biology Dept. and I'll just say that evolution is the basis for all of the biological sciences. Nothing makes coherent scientific sense outside of an evolutionary perspective. And yes, the more we study 'irreducibly complex' things, the more we realize that there is reducible complexity. However, there are lots and lots of complex systems in place which haven't even begun to be analyzed in a reducible way. I was a staunch evolutionist (although, yes I am definitely a theist and catholic) up until this last year of school. After completing my senior synthesis course in 'Organic Evolution,' I have to admit that I wasn't particularly satisfied with the evidence that was presented for the evolution of organic life.

The fossil record is impressive, but I feel many parts of it are of questionable certitude. I mean we can find fossils within certain geographic strata and then attempt to radiometrically date them with accuracy...but at the end of the day, it falls to an evolutionary biologist to decide where to place this fossil in the greater record. So you find something that is 'froggily fishy' So as an evolutionary biologist with a priori assumptions about the nature of fossils and using probably accurate dating information...you place the 'froggy fish' right between fish and amphibians on your fossil record cladogram. But that placement is not truly 'testable' and relies on the expertise and 'unbiased' opinion of an evolutionary biologist. Now I like to assume the professional detachment of scientists (after all I AM one), but I recognize that they are human and want to demonstrate something important in their work before they kick the bucket. Seriously, every time a hominid femur is found its "the missing link" or the "oldest human ancestor"...but 15 years later in the silence of anonymity the scientific community realizes its not that special. But the early media frenzy belies the vested interest of the evolutionary biologists involved.

There is no way to actually know with certitude whether this 'froggy fish' actually existed as an intermediate form between fish and amphibians...all we know is that it existed at an appropriate period of time and has derived characteristics it shares with frogs and fish. We place it between fish and frogs as our own INFERENCE from the data available...despite the potentially epistemological issues of said data.

Another example I was particularly dissatisfied with was an experiment used as evidence for 'intermediate forms' that were beneficial. In this experiment, stone flies were examined and prompted to surface skim across the water. These stone flies were very, very primitive non-flying water surface insects similar to the insects that that scientists believe gave rise to the earliest flying insects. Well, in this experiment they shot bursts of air at these bugs to demonstrate they they could induce short distance/time 'flights' above the water. That's it...it was presented as conclusive evidence for the existence and usefulness of a 'half-wing' intermediate form. The only problem is that the experiment did NOT actually show that these short flights (and only like 4 of 80 bugs actually 'flew') had any differential reproductive advantage over non-flying stoneflies. Without empirically demonstrating this latter effect, this study is nothing more than a shoddy inference from a shoddily designed experiment. Furthermore, it was never addressed or hypothesized why if possessing such a powerfully adapted intermediate wing, the stoneflies have not evolved to fly in the last 2 million years (stone flies have evolved very little over time).

The genetic evidence for evolution is fairly powerful...but again, DNA is only stable so long post-mortem and environmental decay prevents applicable DNA analysis of many fossil forms. Therefore analysis is mostly limited to interspecies comparisons to determine relative relatedness on a cladogram. And the nice thing is that the DNA evidence basically supports the fossil evidence for recent speciation.

I guess really what I'm trying to say is that evolution is a pretty good theory (and really the only theory supported by a wide range of scientific fields)...the only problem is how it has been propelled by shoddy inferences and biased scientists. I'm not saying that these bad inferences completely undermine the reality of the theory. I just don't think that non-scientists should be citing scientific evidence for evolution until they have studied it well enough to recognize its epistemological limitations.[/quote]

i agree irreducible complexity is the best argument. i agree, if there's any merit to teaching ID, it'd be from that. but, there's nothing so far tha can't be shown to not be reducibly complex. also... i don't doubt that many fossils are simpy assumed as lins... but, as shown in the PBS link, they go to a level of geology in the dirt age wise, and it fits together.
i'm not sure if they can trace chromosomes and stuff on fossils and link them in anyway or not. i bet one day they ill be able to, if the DNA is still viable.
i even admit how humans got here could be clearer, depsite all the tranistional fossils, and ones taht perfectly straddle the lines it seems etc. but there's too much evidence to teach ID right now.

i think we agree on all this, i'm just saying i agree i think..

Edited May 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1533483' date='May 19 2008, 11:08 AM']i agree irreducible complexity is the best argument. i agree, if there's any merit to teaching ID, it'd be from that. but, there's nothing so far tha can't be shown to not be reducibly complex. also... i don't doubt that many fossils are simpy assumed as lins... but, as shown in the PBS link, they go to a level of geology in the dirt age wise, and it fits together.
i'm not sure if they can trace chromosomes and stuff on fossils and link them in anyway or not. i bet one day they ill be able to, if the DNA is still viable.
i even admit how humans got here could be clearer, depsite all the tranistional fossils, and ones taht perfectly straddle the lines it seems etc. but there's too much evidence to teach ID right now.

i think we agree on all this, i'm just saying i agree i think..[/quote]


Haha...I'm glad you think you agree...I think... Seriously though, I wasn't stating my argument as support of ID. I do NOT support ID. If people want their kids to be taught about God and Creation...that is the job of the parent...like we need any legislation which will allow parents to be lazier and more detached from their kids and to allow the schools to just raise them. I spent 12 years in Catholic schools...and definitely glad for it...but to be honest my parents didnt' do the best job 'raising me catholic' because they assumed the school would teach me what I needed to know.

My problem with the fossil record is that outside of DNA testing, there is little empirical testing that can actually be done besides the inferences of evolutionary biologists. I mean they could be right...but they could be wrong about where the fossil fits in the cladogram...and there is no solid way to 'test' it. Good science relies on testable hypothesis and falsifiabilty. The geological evidence and anatomical evaluations are really good evidence for the fossil record...I just don't like that its not easily 'testable' or 'falsifiable.'

Anyway...I was just saying that scientific knowledge needs to be better understood by people who want to use it as evidence for anything they are arguing. You need to get past PBS and into the primary literature. Seriously, NOVA is good for people who have no concept of science...but anyone who really wants to know anything needs to be reading the journals themselves to see if the data is worthwhile. TV shows have ratings to be concerned with and scientists have repuations at stake...but someone who's looked at enough data tables can read through the bs. And most people DON'T know the limitations of scientific knowledge because people are sheep that like to repeat what they hear as fact because it gives them something to hear themselves baaaaing about. If I had a nickel for every ignorant liberal arts student who tried to argue science with me as if they know anything...

I don't know why I'm so misanthropic today...

I do agree with most of what you've said too. And I'm glad I haven't ticked you off like JIMSH has!!!!!!! I read your lambasting of him in another thread. I guess he's had that coming...


Peace.

Todd W.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the problem is that people think too democratically, about what should be taught, when science and truth is not open for majority rule.

[quote]Proponents of that idea suggest that including it in the curriculum is simply a question of fairness. If a significant number of people do not believe that evolution provides an adequate explanation of the origin of species, they argue, then it is only fair to present both sides of the argument in a high school science class.

But at least half of Americans polled in a recent survey by the National Science Foundation did not know that Earth orbits the Sun, and that it takes a year to do so. Does this mean we should teach that Earth is the center of the universe? Of course not. It merely means that we are not doing a very good job informing the public about physics.[/quote]

[quote]there is another debate that is hard to win. It is a debate on the "fairness" of science. The reason for the difficulty is simple. Science is not fair. All ideas are not treated equally. Only those that have satisfied the test of experiment or can be tested by experiment have any currency. Beautiful ideas, elegant ideas and even sacrosanct notions are not immune from termination by the chilling knife edge of experimental data.[/quote]

the ID debate may not really be analogous to teaching things like the sun revolves around the earth,, but from what i can tell, given all the links and info and not just me basing it on nothing, it's pretty close.

Edited July 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1609737' date='Jul 27 2008, 01:22 AM']the ID debate may not really be analogous to teaching things like the sun revolves around the earth,, but from what i can tell, it's pretty close.[/quote]

and yet some people believe that as well . As far as I can see both ID and your analogy hold at least as much weight as their counterparts.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1609742' date='Jul 27 2008, 02:31 AM']and yet some people believe that as well . As far as I can see both ID and your analogy hold at least as much weight as their counterparts.[/quote]If you think ID holds any weight, might I ask for you to give me a bit of scientific evidence in support of it?

[goldenchild17]

most of my evidence would be a debunking of macro-evolution (not micro). So I don't know if you really want that. Besides I'm certainly not an expert on the subject. But if you want me to share the little I go by then I might be able to find time for it. Depends on how active my own message board gets.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1609776' date='Jul 27 2008, 05:49 AM']most of my evidence would be a debunking of macro-evolution (not micro). So I don't know if you really want that. Besides I'm certainly not an expert on the subject. But if you want me to share the little I go by then I might be able to find time for it. Depends on how active my own message board gets.[/quote]But you said ID held weight. If it does, it MUST have some evidence FOR it that you know of. So, yes, I would like something. I have been looking for such evidence for six months or so now. It would be wonderful to actually find some.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Farsight one

[Farsight one]

Bumpidy.

No way I'm letting this one fall into oblivion...

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1615446' date='Aug 1 2008, 08:38 PM']Bumpidy.

No way I'm letting this one fall into oblivion...[/quote]

So you are the Amazing Rando, [url="http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm"]Necromancer[/url] supreme.

[img]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/necromancer.jpg[/img]

Wow, you look pretty creepy.

YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN 6-DAY CREATIONISM. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, BECAUSE YOU MUST NOT KNOW HOW TO READ. WHAT CHARITY WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DONATE TOO SO YOU CAN GO LEARN TO READ!

[MissScripture]

[quote name='KOIfriend' post='1622161' date='Aug 8 2008, 09:11 PM']YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN 6-DAY CREATIONISM. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, BECAUSE YOU MUST NOT KNOW HOW TO READ. WHAT CHARITY WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DONATE TOO SO YOU CAN GO LEARN TO READ![/quote]
WHY ARE WE YELLING?

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1622274' date='Aug 9 2008, 01:08 AM']WHY ARE WE YELLING?[/quote]

Because I thought me might not understand if I didn't WRITE LOUDLY!

Such a shame, your education system doesn't give you the scientific, mathematic, or the english to read what is plainly said in the bible.

Edited August 9, 2008 by KOIfriend

[Farsight one]

[quote name='KOIfriend' post='1622294' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:43 AM']Because I thought me might not understand if I didn't WRITE LOUDLY!

Such a shame, your education system doesn't give you the scientific, mathematic, or the english to read what is plainly said in the bible.[/quote]
Actually, my education gave me a rather advanced comprehension of English. I've had poetry in publications and am currently writing a couple books. When I was five I knew the creation story was an allegory. It's not a literal account nor was it ever meant to be. And insulting me and "yelling", no matter how much you do it, aren't going to convince me otherwise.

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1622413' date='Aug 9 2008, 09:41 AM']Actually, my education gave me a rather advanced comprehension of English. I've had poetry in publications and am currently writing a couple books. When I was five I knew the creation story was an allegory. It's not a literal account nor was it ever meant to be. And insulting me and "yelling", no matter how much you do it, aren't going to convince me otherwise.[/quote]

LOL!!

And how does that make you feel, all the education and intelligence? Does it make you feel superiour and more evolved than I?

Thanks dude!

Seems like I am dealing with another [url="http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/android.htm"]Android[/url]

Android doesn't anger, nor does he engage in actual combat, rather he will merely point out the logical inconsistencies of other Warriors. Irony and sarcasm are completely lost on Android, and being impossible to insult or injure in any way, he is invulnerable to conventional attack. If, for example, someone were to call him a pinhead, he would get out a tape measure and after finding that his cranium falls within normal size specifications Android would dismiss the comment as erroneous. Android's circuits are not equipped to process ambiguous or aesthetic input, consequently any extensive discussion involving personal feelings, intuition, art and metaphorical allusions will quickly drive Android from the field of battle.

[img]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/android.jpg[/img]

Copyrighted to [img]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/fwlogo.gif[/img]

Edited August 9, 2008 by KOIfriend