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

On Mar 13, 12:47 pm, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <spucv25lpjh1pq5s2tul6av1vifalhv...@xxxxxxx>,
Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 12 Mar 2007 19:34:03 -0700, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:48 pm, "Dan Drake" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:00:42 UTC, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

DJT,

You commented on the University of California Berkeley's definition
of evolution. Their definition states:

"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."

You made the statement:

That's not so much a definition of evolution, as an explanation of
common descent.

"Common descent" sounds like a reasonable term. Do youbelievewith
UC Berkeley's statement that it is "the central idea of biological
evolution"?

Does anyone else care to comment on the University of California
Berkeley's definition:

"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."

That is NOT a definition.

No, it's a quote-mine.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evo_02

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First the responses:
RESPONSES TO "Free Lunch":
The reason why science is so often useful is precisely because it
tries to explain how the material world we live in works based on
hypotheses testable by examining that material nature. The reason why
appeals to supernatural explanations so often fail to be useful is
because when they make testable (not necessarily future) predictions,
those predictions are not based on prior knowledge and information
from the material world. Or they present ideas like ID that are not
testable by reference to material evidence.

Isn't science useful because it allows us to build bridges, develop
drugs for illnesses, build electronic circuits, etc.? Is science
useful if it doesn't benefit mankind in some way? Note that in the
Stem Cell Research debate, proponents nearly exclusively cite its
potential benefits for curing human illnesses. Ever hear one of them
say "to try to explain the how the material world we live in works
based on hypotheses testable by examining the material nature"? Would
this fly?


Because it is a testable explanation of how the material world
actually works. One that is, so far, consistent with that material
evidence in ways that Biblical literalism (which, unlike ID does
present testable hypotheses -- ones long since shown to be contrary to
empirical reality) is not.

Give one example where Darwinian (or Macro) evolution has been tested,
and of course validated. Details please; not general comments from
scientists or a long list of article titles.

Why bring up ID? Did you see my earlier statement that I don't
believe ID should be taught as science?

Predicting the currently observable expectations (and potentially
false when the ultimate arbiter of natural science -- material nature
itself -- is examined) of past events or processes is clearly
science.

You may have a point here. There may be cases where a theory can be
validated using past events. However, most scientific theories were
developed using past events and then validated by showing their
ability to predict future events. (Example: Scientist Smith makes
observations on a particular illness. He develops a theory based on
the observations. He predicts a cure using those observations. If it
succeeds, great; if not, Scientist Smith refines his theory.) Until a
scientific theory can be used for predicting future events, it is
scientifically useless. Why would it be important to teach such a
theory in science classes since students could in no way use it to
predict future events. Doctors, veterinarians, chemists: they all
use what they learn to predict-and even affect-future events. The
past is academic.

Of particular concern for this topic is that Evolutionary theory was
developed from the fossil record and evolutionary theory is now being
used to predict the fossil record. Why can't evolutionary theory yet
accurately predict future species (morphology and time of appearance)?

Any science field should be able to make specific predictions about
future *observations* based on an understanding of theory. And then
determine if those observations are congruent with or contrary to
theory. ID cannot do that, since it has no theory that produces
specific predictions. Evolution can and has.

But is finding something consistent with a theory the same as saying
the theory must be true. Don't incorrect theories often produce
correct results over some regimes. (Example: A naïve scientist
observes that when people bring umbrellas to work it rains. He then
forms a theory that people bringing umbrellas to work causes a change
in the atmosphere that causes it to rain. His theory would accurately
predict rain (to some extent), but nevertheless the theory is wrong.)

ID Again.


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

It appears you're trying to keep open the option of predicting the
past, i.e. the fossil record.
Isn't an observation an event. Example: Scientist Smith observed
reduction in bacteria levels at 2:30. Though observations are events,
using the word "observation" makes it sound more subjective.
Observations can be wrong. Events can't.

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?
[Above three lines were my response to the claim Steven J. made that
"ID is not doing well in this area [in meeting the definition of
science that is]
You mean observing present realities to see if it is consistent with
the expectations of evolution? Like looking at neutral sequence
change? Or looking for fossil intermediates in the right places? Or
observing the way that natural selection actually influences change in
morphology and population genetics?
But isn't my claim still valid? Can you think of any other science
filed that doesn't claim some ability to predict future events? Of
course your last point regarding natural selection is probably valid.
However, this is microevolution, not macroevolution. More about that
later in this message.
As opposed to saying, I don't think that can evolve (or there is no
current evidence that it evolved), so IDdidit?
ID again.

If so
isn't it more history than science? What predictions can Darwinian
Evolution make that can be validated in a controlled environment?
Natural selection and neutral change can both be validated as
mechanisms that produce change in morphology and sequence. No one has
validated such changes as the result of the unspecified ID they claim
replaces evolution.

I agree; I think. But this is microevolution. More about that later
in this message.

ID again.

[snip stuff which is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is the
best (in fact only) natural science explanation for the observations
one sees in the natural world. Utility of a science and whether that
science is used for good or ill or whether one likes or doesn't like
it because it offends one is irrelevant to whether or not science is
accurately describing the empirical observable material world. I can
certainly explain why male ducks benefit from raping female ducks or
why dung beetles roll *** without demanding that the material world
be different than what is observable reality to suit my
sensibilities. Science is necessarily a-moral and a-theistic.
Morality and theism are normative ideas about what "ought to be".
Science is descriptive about what "is".]

Did you observe evolution from a single cell all the way to a human?
How can you be so confident of a theory that involves events that
occurred billions of years ago and whose ability to produce future
events has never been validated? (see explanation later in message of
narrowed definition of evolution for this topic)

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)
Both are piss-poor definitions.
How about "Accurately describe, to the best of current ability, how
the material world *actually* works by a process that involves testing
predictions from alternative ideas against empirical reality."
Too confusing.

RESPONSE to "Ye Old One":
Does anyone else care to comment on the University of California
Berkeley's definition:
"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."
That is NOT a definition.
Good point; "statement" would have been better. It's interesting you
focused on this vocabulary error and chose to ignore the rest of my
questions and comments. Thought the questions were easy ones.

RESPONSES TO TIMBERWOOF:
Does anyone else care to comment on the University of California
Berkeley's definition:
"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."
That is NOT a definition.
No, it's a quote-mine.
Excellent; did you really put this quote on the Berkeley website or
were you speaking figuratively. Again, it is a quote and not a
definition. I take it you agree with the quote.

NEW MATERIAL
The poll results on the University of Berkeley 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."
DJT: yes; with an explanation
Free Lunch: did not vote, but responded to earlier message that
did not ask the question
Ye Old One: did not vote
Timberwoof: yes (and maybe even authored it)
sss1000: yes (this does not mean I believe it happened; it means I
believe it is the central idea behind the theory)
So the vote is 3 to 0 that the University of California-Berkeley
statement is correct. It's nice to be unanimous for a change.
So the following statement is correct:
"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."
Evolution does encompass other ideas, but the above idea is the
primary sticking point between advocates and adversaries of teaching
evolution. (Let me know if you disagree.) Because this is the
primary sticking point in teaching evolution in schools, and because
Berkeley recommends teaching it to students, and because the topic is
"Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools", and because
narrowing the debate will likely improve discussion, will focus my
future comments on this definition.
The questions to all of you are:
1) Should the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor
be taught as science in schools? Why or why not?

2) Has teaching the theory that all life on Earth shares a common
ancestor ever produced tangible or intangible benefits to society? If
so, what are they?

3) Should the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor
be taught in schools if it produces neither tangible nor intangible
benefits to society?

sss1000







.