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

On Mar 15, 11:01 am, "louan...@xxxxxxxxx" <louan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:14 pm, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

First the responses:

I notice that once again, when I suggest discussing evolution on its
merits -- i.e. is it _true_, and what evidence says so? -- you softly
and silently vanish away. Why is that?

(snip)

Did you observe evolution from a single cell all the way to a human?

Funny you should word it that way. I've produced a human from a single
cell twice.

Look, I appreciate your ability to construct coherent sentences. Also
the way you don't instantly drop into profanity and threats of
hellfire when someone crosses you. That alone gives you high rank
among our local creationists. But you still don't know what you're
talking about, nor apparently have any interest in learning.

You're fixated on the idea that science is a sort of magic which
exists to put out useful gadgets to order. It's not. It's a method of
finding out how the universe works, and especially of checking and re-
checking your answers.

It's also not a popularity contest. If you were able to persuade
everyone in the world that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer, that
would not magically make all the smoking-related cancers go away. Same
thing with evolution. You can't "make it didn't happen" by getting
people to stop talking about it or teaching it in schools, you can
only make people more ignorant about processes that are going to keep
happening anyway.



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 thisvocabularyerrorandchosetoignorethe 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.

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for your responses. I am apparently outnumbered by about 10 to
1, so hopefully you can understand that replying to everyone is
difficult. I intended to reply to everyone, but am starting to fall
asleep, so the responses are incomplete. I apologize for that, but
plan to respond to everyone who takes a legitimate shot at answering
the "final question" at the end of this message. Plan to make my last
response at that time.

sss1000



FOLLOW-UPS TO PREVIOUS RESPONSES

Steven J:
....Some people want to
understand how the facts of nature fit together, how humans came to
be
and how we fit into the universe. Evolutionary biology is *useful*
to
such people, whether it helps provide faster internet service or
not.

Sss1000 follow-up:
Steven presented some sentences before the quoted sentence above
dealing with "Free Lunch's" response and the question of how versus
why. Steven: Didn't understand your argument. Regarding Steven's
above quote: "Some people want to understand how the facts of nature
fit together, how humans came to be and how we fit in the universe"...
Hmm: Isn't this exactly the purpose of religion?

Steven J:
[in response to the question: "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."]
I rather like human chromosome 2, with its vestigial telomere and
centromere embedded in the chromosome; its banding precisely matches
up with two different chimpanzee chromosomes, as though the homologs
to these chromosomes had fused together in some evolutionary
precursor
of _Homo sapiens_. Even more striking is the correspondence among
GULO pseudogenes in humans and other old-world primates; identically-
disabled nonfunctional genes (which explains why none of us, unlike
most mammals, can make vitamin C, which is why we get scurvy if we
don't eat enough fruit), with the minor sequence differences in the
pseudogenes smallest between species believed (on independent
grounds)
to be most closely related (e.g. the human version is closest to the
chimp version, slightly more unlike the gorilla version, more unlike
the orangutan version, and still more different from the macaque
version). Of course, others will prefer to list the fossils of
_Tiktaalik roseae_, an intermediate between primitive lobe-finned
fish
and primitive tetrapods, found in strata laid down when, on the basis
of common descent, such an intermediate was thought to have lived.

Sss1000 follow-up:
Very impressive Steven, and I think the best attempt yet to answer the
question. You do give specifics (of course for the moment I'll have
to take your word for it.). From what I can understand, your first
two examples show similarities between human and primate genes. You
state the second as being more striking; I believe because the
smallest differences between humans and primates occur for primates
believed (on independent grounds) to be most related to humans: from
closest to farthest being chimp, gorilla, orangutan, macaque. This is
impressive, but could that have not been predicted from observation.
Don't we know from basic observation that humans most resemble chimps,
gorillas, orangutans, macaques? Don't most people deduce by pure
observation that humans resemble primates more than other animals?
Aren't their hands, feet, and face (not a fllaterring statement) most
closely resemble humans. Given that these similarities, isn't it
logical that humans genetics would also most closely match primates.

Your two primate examples show observations that are consistent with
the theory of Darwinian evolution. However, this was really not a
test of Darwinian Evolution but a finding that is favorable to the
theory. These were observations made in a laboratory. The scientist
did not PREDICT this outcome and then perform the experiment to
VALIDATE his prediction. Event if he had predicted it, couldn't
another scientist have predicted it based on the similarities in the
species established "on independent grounds" (are these independentt
grounds possibly visual observations of features?; What other non-
evolutionary grounds could there be.)

The fish argument is not as strong. In the future scientists will
likely discover bones of some previously undiscovered life-form. This
life-form will undoubtedly share characteristics with more than one
species. Everyday experience on earth tells us that most creatures
share characteristics with more than one species, so both
evolutionists and non-evolutionists would predict this outcome. Just
think of a biologist in the deep of the Amazon that discovers a new
type of lizard. Undoubtedly it will share characteristics with
several known lizard species. This is predicted without the need for
Darwinian Evolution. Everyday experience teaches us this.

To really test evolution, one should predict with detail the
morphology and date of existence of several yet unknown species, and
then discover those species and date them to that time period.

Sss1000: >> Isn't science useful because it allows us to build
bridges
Wf3h: > no. science is useful because it answers questions about the
world.

Sss1000: Merely increasing knowledge is not what I consider "useful".


Sss1000: > 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.
Wf3h: > it provides the answer to why we see speciation in the fossil
record.

Sss1000>> Did you observe evolution from a single cell all the way to
a human?
Louann_m>Funny you should word it that way. I've produced a human from
a single
cell twice.

Sss1000> Okay, that was a good one; and fine humans I'm sure. Aren't
you glad they DID NOT have any mutations?

Louann_m> Look, I appreciate your ability to construct coherent
sentences. Also
the way you don't instantly drop into profanity and threats of
hellfire when someone crosses you. That alone gives you high rank
among our local creationists. But you still don't know what you're
talking about, nor apparently have any interest in learning.
You're fixated on the idea that science is a sort of magic which
exists to put out useful gadgets to order. It's not. It's a method of
finding out how the universe works, and especially of checking and
re-
checking your answers.
It's also not a popularity contest. If you were able to persuade
everyone in the world that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer,
that
would not magically make all the smoking-related cancers go away.
Same
thing with evolution. You can't "make it didn't happen" by getting
people to stop talking about it or teaching it in schools, you can
only make people more ignorant about processes that are going to keep
happening anyway.
Sss1000: Thanks for the opening complements.
I really don't believe that science is "a sort of
magic". Actually I believe that it is the exact opposite. It is the
study of the physical world. However, I may disagree with you over
the purpose of science. For me it is: to learn about the physical
world in order to aid mankind. Others may disagree with this
purpose. However, more to the point. My point is that if any
scientific knowledge is true knowledge, then at some point it should
be able to produce some tangible benefit to society. The keyword here
is "tangible". Forget "benefit" for the moment. The way I see
evolutionary theory advancing is something like this: 1a) Scientist
Smith discovers bones or fossils of a previously unknown species; 2a)
the scientific community decides where and how this species fits on
the evolutionary scale: 3a) the discovery is applauded as a great
scientific advancement; 1b) Scientist Brown discovers bones or
fossils of a previously unknown species; 2b) the scientific community
decides where this species fits on the evolutionary scale; 3b) the
discovery is applauded as a great scientific advancement. etc., etc.
So evolutionary science only discovers things to feed itself (and
receives more research dollars in the process.) Most, if not all,
other major scientific theories actually produce something useful
because they can accurately predict future events.
Example:
During the thirties and early forties, scientists were rapidly
advancing in their understanding of nuclear physics. They continued
to experiment and refine their theories. If all they had at the end
was what they thought was a good theory, was it worth the effort?
Didn't building and exploding the atomic bomb prove two things: a)
the theory was correct to some useful extent; and 2) it produced
tangible benefits: at least nuclear energy if you think the nuclear
bomb was not a tangible benefit. Wasn't the explosion of the nuclear
bomb the ultimate test of their theory? When has the theory of
evolution produced its bomb?
The lack of evolutionary theory's ability to predict future events
renders it both useless and in doubt. If you took all of the
evolutionary scientists and their research dollars and applied them to
investigating cancer, the cure may have been found by now. Wouldn't
that have been a better thing than a simple increase in knowledge?


ANSWERS TO THREE QUESTIONS:

Question 1 was:

1) Should the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor
be taught as science in schools? Why or why not?

Mark Isaak responded:
Yes, it is well-established science, and it is true.

Mark,
Your statement as to why is not an argument. If someone said: ID
is well-established science, and it is true, wouldn't you request an
explanation of how ID is well-established science?

Wf3h responded:
Yes. It is a theory with considerable evidence.

Sss1000 response:
This may be true wf3h, but this is a statement of belief and not
an argument. Many people disagree with you. You did answer the
question directly though; thanks.


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


Mark Isaak responded:
Yes, it is an essential part of drug discovery and research on all
kinds of diseases. It also plays a part in agriculture, in looking to
breed more robust crops and in integrated pest management.

Sss1000's response:
Mark,
You do list tangible benefits and they may have been produced by
teaching the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor,
but given that there are so many benefits, couldn't you provide
details for just one? If you would provide the details of just one,
or provide me the reference for just one, I will try to examine it
closely. A discriminating scientist should not just accept statements
at face value but should examine the evidence in detail and make his
conclusions based on the evidence.

Wf3h responded:
Yes. It answers the question of origins.

Sss1000's response:
You didn't say whether you considered this a tangible or
intangible benefit. Will have to count this as an intangible benefit.

Question 3 was:
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?

Mark Isaak responded:
I realize most creationists will not consider healing the sick and
feeding the poor to qualify as tangible benefits, but others do, and
would like them to continue.

Sss1000's response:
Mark,
You were reasonable in your first two answers but went off the
handle on this one. Why in the world do you believe that creationists
"will not consider healing the sick and feeding the poor to qualify as
tangible benefits"? Aren't many religious people also creationists
and don't many of them help their fellow man? Haven't you witnessed
religious people helping their fellow man? Looking at the opposite
view: If one is an evolutionist, and an atheist, isn't it his belief
that his primary purpose in life is to have as many children as
possible in order to ensure his children do better than others'
children? Doesn't that guarantee that he will pass his genes to more
offspring than others? In fact, shouldn't an atheistic evolutionist
rejoice when others get sick and die because it means his own
offspring will fare better and thus pass his genes on to more
children? Where is the room for compassion in Darwinian evolution?

Anyway, since you answered "Yes" to the first two questions, this
question was somewhat academic for you; will take this as an "N/A".

Df3h responded:
Irrelevant question. Science does not depend on tangible benefits to
society, we understand how stars form, that has produced no tangible
benefits to society, yet we teach astronomy.


GENERAL COMMENTS

1) All respondents (okay; may have missed one or two) appear to hold
an absolute, unquestioning belief in Darwinian Evolution. Given my
narrowing of the definition to "the belief that all life on Earth
shares a common ancestor", with all yes's and no complaints, I must
believe that all respondents also expressed an absolute, unquestioning
belief that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. The attitude
was akin to a religious conviction. Not one of you acknowledged
problems with evolutionary theory or admitted to positives in Creation
theory. This is incredible given that many leading scientists harbor
significant doubts:

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997,
page 31:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because
we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not
that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts
that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot
allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA:
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems
almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of
what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man,
armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state
that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be
almost a miracle...


Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner:
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is
entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis
based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These
classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an
immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that
they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long
time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest."

2) Based on the way many respondents took a a negative, or even
hostile, cut at religion, the following appears to be true about many
evolutionists:

It isn't that evolutionists like evolutionary theory and therefore
dislike Intelligent Design, but that evolutionists dislike Intelligent
Design and therefore like evolution."




CURRENT STANDING ON THE QUESTION OF WHY THE THEORY THAT "ALL LIFE ON
EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" SHOULD BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN
SCHOOLS:

There appear to be three categories of answers provided to why should
the theory that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" should be
taught as science in schools:

Reason A:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" does not,
or may not, produce any tangible or intangible benefits to society.
However, it is science and therefore should be taught as science.

Response to Reason A:
If you believe ANY subject should be taught in schools that provides
neither tangible nor intangible benefits to society, then I strongly
disagree with you. By teaching them something that doesn't produce
benefits, they are not being taught something that does produce
benefits. This is a philosophical disagreement, so further discussion
is probably not useful. (but maybe it should be discussed anyway?!)

Reason B:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" at least
produces intangible benefits to society. Therefore, it should be
taught as science in schools.

Response to Reason B:
Some of you pointed out that art, literature, and similar subjects
produce only intangible benefits, but should be taught. I agree
wholeheartedly. But is science on the same level as art and
literature? Don't most of you think of science as being more
objective, such as learning about the physical environment and its
laws. Isn't this why so many students dislike science: it is drier
and more mathematical than art and literature, which are emotionally
richer and more subjective. Most importantly, if teaching the theory
that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" produces only
intangible benefits, then it is equivalent to teaching religion, and
teaching Intelligent Design is just as "scientific" as this type of
evolution. My personal belief is that science should produce tangible
benefits, at least over time, so teaching the theory that "all life on
Earth shares a common ancestor" should not be taught as science if it
produces only intangible benefits. Maybe it would be appropriate
outside of the science class, but of course Intelligent Design has
just as much reason for being taught then.

Reason C:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" produces
tangible benefits to society, and therefore should be taught as
science.

Response to Reason C:
If the theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"
produces tangible benefits to society, then I agree that it should be
taught as science in schools. However, none of you have provided a
clear example of such benefits. Some of you provided very scientific-
sounding lists of articles or benefits. Of course listing articles or
benefits is not much proof in itself. A single detailed example or a
reference to a detailed example is needed to assess whether the theory
has produced such a benefit.
[Steven J: I didn't give your response the attention it deserved and
it provided at least some details; would appreciate if you would add
more details (or the reference) in answer to the final question
below]

FINAL QUESTION

IS THERE A SINGLE EXAMPLE SHOWING HOW TEACHING THE THEORY THAT "ALL
LIFE ON EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" HAS PRODUCED A TANGIBLE
BENEFIT TO SOCIETY. If so, please provide either a detailed account
or a reference to a detailed account; one example only. (After 150
years, shouldn't there be one shining example?)

If no one provides such an example, then my conclusion must be that
teaching the theory "that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"
produces, at best, intangible benefits. Such benefits are
unscientific and therefore this theory does not belong in science
class. If it should be taught outside of science, then Intelligent
Design has as much right to be taught.

This is your last shot! I only intend to answer those of you who at
least take a shot at the final question.

Thanks,
sss1000



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: bats flew before echolocation
    ... What "quality conflicting evidence"? ... there is no evidence that the first humans were "ultra ... Creationists have always disagreed with one another, ... Evolution, however is quite true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poor Darwin
    ... The Young Earth Creationists believe ... you misunderstand and misrepresent how science works. ... evolution itself is unscientific. ... > Judgments a surprise to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: FYI
    ... uttered the example of a giraffe's neck in conjunction with the ToE. ... (Kinda like science.) ... The folks who are upset are the Creationists who backed this fiasco. ... evolution, even when it is pointed to reapeatedly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for Ray Martinez
    ... suspect this since you think evolution is science. ... We (= Creationists and Christians). ... Ray, do you really get that from what Steven wrote? ... The fact that all humans are closely related to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poor Darwin
    ... Perhaps you could tell us why a nonuniform rate of evolution ... >> Creationists of both stripes operate in recognizable ways familiar to ... you misunderstand and misrepresent how science works. ... >> Judgments a surprise to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)