Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?

On Mar 11, 11:45 am, "louan...@xxxxxxxxx" <louan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 10, 12:05 pm, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What tangible benefits has the teaching of Darwinian evolution
produced?

I'll let other people take that one and challenge your question at its
roots. Does every major idea taught in school (e.g. the fact that the
Napoleonic Wars happened) have to produce specific, tangible
benefits?

Telling the truth is morally right. Lying is morally wrong.
Deliberately omitting basic facts about the world because they upset
you is simply a variant of lying and is morally no better.

Thanks for your responses.

Surprising was the fact that many of you concentrated your responses
on my brief religious statement. The point of this statement was to
be straight-forward in my belief in Intelligent Design and to assert
that although I believe in Intelligent Design, I also don't believe it
should be taught in science classes because it "has no equations and
does not allow one to produce scientific discoveries beneficial to
society". Would love to respond to many of your comments on my
religious statements, but this is a subject for another discussion and
want to get refocused on the subject of this discussion. Understand
that many of you disagree with my religious beliefs.

The topic of discussion is "Should Evolution be Taught as Science in
Schools". The reason I gave for not teaching Intelligent Design as
science is that is has no equations and does not allow one to produce
scientific discoveries beneficial to society.

"Steven J." made a good point:
"The ability to produce "scientific discoveries beneficial to
society"
is not a test of whether or not something is science. Whether one is
able to make money off a fact, or use it to cure cancer or kill one's
enemies has no bearing n whether it is a fact or whether the
empirical
evidence supports it. I'm not sure that having "equations" is the
test
for being science. Having testable theories -- theories that make
predictions that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence -- is
the test for science. ID is not doing well at all in this area,
which
is why it is not science."


My Response
I agree with his assertion that not all scientific discoveries have a
benefit (or at least an immediate benefit) to society. However, most
scientific fields do at some point provide benefits to society. It is
the body of knowledge that eventually produces a benefit. If
evolutional theory has no hope of ever producing a benefit, why is it
so important that it be taught in science classes?

Also believe that Steven J. made a good definition for science:
"Having testable theories-theories that make predictions that can be
confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence-is the test for science."

The only point I would like to add is that science needs to be able to
predict FUTURE events. Predicting past events is not science. Any
science field I can think of can make accurate predictions about
FUTURE events.

Proposed New Definition of Science
"theories that make predictions about future events that can be
confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence"

Steven J. makes the claim that ID is not doing well in this area[in
meeting the definition of science]. Agree. However, is Darwinian
evolution doing well in this area? Isn't much of evolution research
devoted to the past and trying to fit the past into theory? If so
isn't it more history than science? What predictions can Darwinian
Evolution make that can be validated in a controlled environment? If
these predictions can be made using another theory (not referring to
Intelligent Design here), then why not teach the other theory?

Some of you presented tangible benefits of Evolution, including:

--"Modern medicine"
My response:
Aren't there excellent Doctors and excellent medical researchers who
fully reject Darwinian Evolution? How did the increase in
understanding of the human body and treatments for ailments of the
body REQUIRE the belief in Darwinian evolution?

--"That's hardly a question at all. Evolution is a well respected
scientific theory. There is no question that it belongs in
classrooms."
My response:
Is this much of an argument? Evidently, it is enough to prove that
many scientists believe evolution to accept it as fact. Galileo was
not only ridiculed by religion, but by his fellow scientists! If you
google "Ridiculed Science Mavericks", you'll see a long list of
scientists who were initially ridiculed. The site states (I
acknowledge that I have not researched this) that

"It was not the church authorities who refused to look through his
telescope. It was his fellow scientists! They thought that using a
telescope was a waste of time, since even if they did see evidence for
Galileo's claims, it could only be because Galileo had bewitched
them."

Fortunately, Galileo did not let the opinion of his fellow scientists
dissuade him from his scientific efforts.

--"There are a number of tangible benefits of an understanding of
evolution, not just limited to agricultural uses, pharmaceutical uses,
medical practices, computer simulations, etc."

This may be the case, but this is a list and not an argument. Details
on exactly how predictions from Darwinian Evolution were required to
produce these benefits are needed.

Others also provided lists. Given that I have not yet become wealthy
enough to quit my day job, I respectfully request the single best
example you can think of. The example should show how Darwinian
evolution either:

1) "made predictions about future events that could be confirmed or
disconfirmed by evidence" (new definition)
OR
2) "produced tangible benefits to society (old definition)

Request that you provide the details within your message, or supply a
reference to the study (and how I can access it if you know it)


Related Question:
The precise definition of evolution is sometimes a point of
contention. Obviously, scientific groups can establish the most
refined and technically accurate definition. However, in keeping with
the theme of this topic, the way evolution is being defined in schools
(by schoolteachers) is most important. The University of California
Berkeley has an evolution website devoted to the teaching of evolution
in schools. It makes the following statement:

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth
shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother."

This is a working definition of what I always thought was a
fundamental tenet of Darwinian Evolution. It is this definition which
I believe is the reason for so much controversy over teaching
Darwinian Evolution in schools. Would like to hear from you on
whether you agree with this statement.

Thanks,
sss1000



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)