Re: Teaching Evolution In Schools

On Mar 30, 10:53 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1175263572.666209.106...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian
Chua <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> writes



On Mar 30, 8:06 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1175249585.780049.186...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian
Chua <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> writes

On Mar 30, 5:54 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1175219792.660536.310...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian
Chua <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> writes

On Mar 29, 9:15 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:1175215839.143861.170170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
... I had worked in the engineering field for more than 27 years
and received 3 awards from the government while working for
the public
housing authority. But I'm studying in other fields of engineering
now
so that I can coordinate the development of middle/high school
teaching resources. I need to be rigorous in what I'm doing now.

Excuse me. But did you just say that you used to work in engineering,
at least partly for the government? And that the government liked your
work? But now you are engaged in something different, so you need to
be rigorous now?

Much that I did not understand is now made clear.

ANSWER: Yes - I'm now in education. Actually, it's not a completely
new
field to me. I studied college Biology and have read books from
opposing
camps (evolution vs. creationism). I had undergone teacher training
prior to
pursuing an engineering career and have also been tutoring for more
than 30 years.
I tutored my own sons - the elder son was admitted to Purdue at the
age of 16 yrs.
The younger son also skipped a grade at high school and was admitted
to Purdue
this year at the age of 17 yrs. I now train teachers during the
summer holidays.

You claim to have studied college biology, and also to be unaware of for
evidence for evolution. You claim to have read books from the "evolution
camp", and also be unaware of evidence for evolution. You do realise
that these are remarkable claims.
--
alias Ernest Major

ANSWER: I'm not convinced - that's why I'm scanning through the peer-
reviewed
journals.

Not being convinced by the evidence, and not being able to find the
evidence are not the same thing. If you're not convinced by the evidence
you should be asking more focussed questions, rather than claiming that
the "evidence" (with scare quotes, yet) is illusive (sic) (I hope you
meant elusive).

ANSWER: Of course... to be convinced by the evidence, you must find
it first. Generating new key questions would certainly help. There
is
no need to close the argument if current evidence is not convincing.

To reiterate the point; you claim to have studied college biology, and
to have read books from the "evolution camp". This means that you should
be aware of the evidence. If you're not convinced by that evidence there
must be specific points at which you think the evidence is insufficient.
Unfocussed complaints about being unable to find the evidence are not
good enough; it's as if you're going through the motions of looking for
the evidence while doing your best not to find it.

If you are sincere in looking to fill in the gaps in the evidence as
your know it, then ask specific, focussed, questions about the gaps that
you perceive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------

We don't know exactly how ignorant you are, but I doubt that you are in
a position to profit from reading peer reviewed papers in general. They
assume that the reader is knowledgeable in the field.

ANSWER: I think what you meant is, assuming that evolution is a fact.

That is an egregious misinterpretation.



But there is another factor that makes research difficult, not only on
the topic of evolution. Search engines for journal databases do not
provide different levels of keyword search. For example, if I want to
search using keywords "evolution" and "proof" and "evidence", I will
get
tons of papers talking about the possible mechanisms of evolution but
not the prove for evolution itself. You are correct that such papers
will be of no value to me because the authors take evolution for
granted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

The observation that you failed to enter adequately focussed search terms
into a library search is evidence that you are not.

ANSWER: When did you observe this? Were you with me?
Perhaps you could suggest some keywords that might work.

I observed this in your own posts. For example, above, you write "if I
want to search using keywords "evolution" and "proof" and "evidence", I
will get tons of papers talking about the possible mechanisms of
evolution but not the prove for evolution itself".

Unless you indicate what sort of evidence you are looking for it is not
possible to offer you more effective keywords for a search.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Journal papers may also be too narrowly focussed to answer your
questions. You would probably be better served by referring to secondary
sources of a more general nature.

ANSWER: I'm glad you understand the difficulty of doing a journal
database search. The problem with secondary sources is that they
are not accepted for scholarly presentation by academia. However,
their bibliographic references may be helpful, but often these are
not provided.

You can't (or at least shouldn't) make scholarly presentations until you
understand the material.

The evidence for an old Earth (not the same as evolution) and common
descent does not come from a single (or even a small number) of key
observations, but from the consilience of billions of observations from
multiple fields. No single journal paper is going to present all the
evidence. A secondary source will make you aware of what the nature of
the evidence for an old Earth and for common descent; when you have read
and digested that you will be in a far better position to find and
understand the primary literature.

By the way, in general, it's tertiary resources that omit bibliographic
references, not secondary sources.

--
alias Ernest Major


Thanks.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... The conclusions are that life could ... The evidence for evolution is broken down into three broad ... The first is direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled ... types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... Darwin, and schools were replete with Christian based instruction, ... Do we also put out the evidence against quantum mechanics? ... there's no credible evidence against evolution. ... The papers get published in peer-reviewed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... Atomic theory somehow manages to omit any reference to God. ... Harshman would not support Darwinian evolution if it supported ... If the evidence supported theism, ... No one can go back and undo Darwin in order to find ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading