Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.

Quite. Neither do they sit around discussing, on expenses, which rival theory governs their lifestyle.

Is it really impossible for you to understand Ed. that evolution theory is a special case within science because it directly impinges on the social organisation in numerous and fundamental ways. The debate about it is similar to debates about whether other scientific discoveries in areas affecting the social structure should be aired in the presence of schoolchildren. Gravity is not such a subject. Pavlov's artificial generation of neurosis is a simple example of the former. As far as I am aware there isn't even a dispute about that.

If you are going to spend the rest of your life with that fatuous analogy I recommend that you avoid the company of intelligent people assuming you don't care for being laughed at.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The biological makeup of most animals on this planet are more similar than they are different. Ability to walk with some other sense like seeing, hearing, and feeling. Bone structures that includes a heart, arteries, blood, hair, muscles and other parts like lungs, tongue, penis, vigina, and a tail, and sex to reproduce

Why the flowery language c.i. on matters everybody knows. Mouth, anus and reproductive organ is sufficient to make the point.

Would you claim that beauty products are not biological.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31-35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.

Hence the popularity of the missionary position. I'm inclined to think that if that pronouncement suddenly came to mind during a performance of the simian rear-mount position there would ensue a certain ironical detachment from the process under way resulting in an uncontrollable tittering from which there would be no possibility of recovery.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.

Quite. Neither do they sit around discussing, on expenses, which rival theory governs their lifestyle.

Is it really impossible for you to understand Ed. that evolution theory is a special case within science because it directly impinges on the social organisation in numerous and fundamental ways. The debate about it is similar to debates about whether other scientific discoveries in areas affecting the social structure should be aired in the presence of schoolchildren. Gravity is not such a subject. Pavlov's artificial generation of neurosis is a simple example of the former. As far as I am aware there isn't even a dispute about that.

If you are going to spend the rest of your life with that fatuous analogy I recommend that you avoid the company of intelligent people assuming you don't care for being laughed at.

Actually, I cut and pasted from farmerman's post, because I knew you had not bothered to read it. Frankly, I believe the human race is resilient enough to have a viable society, and of a higher order, ultimately, by being truthful to itself. If the great religions fall to the wayside, it is within human nature to come up with something that fills any honest gap that leaves.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I can agree with that but the time is not yet. But you have failed to describe what you mean by both "viable" and "higher order". The Tierra del Fuegans Darwin came across were "viable" biologically. (An unfortunately necessary tautology). The proof being their existence.

I read all effemm's posts on the threads about evolution. And some others. That silly argument is common over there.

I'm not convinced that honesty is the best policy. I've been studying Ulysses a lot recently and that is pretty honest it seems to me. But I'm not sure the kids, or their parents, are ready for it. In general I mean. Take the diminishing of fatherhood to a short reflex spasm no sooner accomplished than regretted. That's honest.

0 Replies

I find it hard to visualize life without Ulysses. On the other hand, denying so fundamental a truth as evolution can only work in the short term anyway, unless some Pol Pot style dictator takes over and kills all the knowledgeable people on Earth. Even then he would have to successfully destroy all the science works ever published, plus the inventions. It's a daunting task, one that would have almost zero chance of total success.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

It isn't like that Ed. You're too extreme.

Might I suggest you read Chapters XVI and XVII of Brave New World.

Have you read S.L.Goldberg's The Classical Temper. A Study of James Joyce's Ulysses?

I'm studying that in conjunction with the work.

0 Replies

It has been many a year since I read Huxley's book. I don't recall enough about it to discuss how it could relate to this thread.

0 Replies

CANADA UPDATE

Quote:

Alberta's culture minister not backing down on parents' rights bill
(By Trish Audette, Edmonton Journal, May 14, 2009)

EDMONTON " Alberta's culture minister says he has no intention of backing away from a controversial plan to guarantee parents the right to pull kids from classes that clash with their moral beliefs.

Lindsay Blackett, a rookie minister and first-time MLA, says that despite the barbs sent his way from teachers, human rights groups, school boards, parents and opposition politicians, he's convinced he's doing the right thing by enshrining 'parents' rights' in the provincial Human Rights Act.

"One of the things that this bill and the parental rights piece has brought to light is a discussion about our rights as parents," Blackett said.

Last month, the minister introduced a package of proposed changes to the act which would, for the first time in provincial history, enshrine in law the right to protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But it was the parental rights clause, which would allow parents to withdraw their children from classroom lessons on sexuality, sexual orientation and religion, that made headlines.

The Alberta Teachers' Association claims the clause will create a chilling effect in schools and expose teachers to being hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to justify their teaching methods.

Others claim parental rights were a backroom trade-off Conservatives made with the party's right wing to get protection for sexual orientation.

Even the government has been sending mixed signals about the bill. After suggesting publicly that the clause would allow parents to keep their children out of classes on evolution, Premier Ed Stelmach reversed himself.

"Bill 44 confirms the existing situation to opt out of religion instruction and sex education. It does not give parents the right to opt out of other instruction on religious grounds," the premier told the legislature this week.

Liberal Leader David Swann called the changes an international embarrassment and a threat to Alberta's public education system.

"Everybody thinks there's some hidden agenda here," Blackett said, adding there is no "right-wing bogeyman" at work.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

"Everybody thinks there's some hidden agenda here," Blackett said, adding there is no "right-wing bogeyman" at work.

Is this anything like Nixon's, "I am not a crook?"

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

good analogy, LW

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

The minute a politician qualifies what they want the public to believe, it's highly suspicious and almost always the opposite of what they are stating.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

EDMONTON " Alberta's culture minister says he has no intention of backing away from a controversial plan to guarantee parents the right to pull kids from classes that clash with their moral beliefs.

Is there any parent, or legislator or school board member, in the US who doesn't favour parents being guaranteed the right to pull kids from classes that clash with their moral beliefs?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Sorry for the late response, probably should not even respond as ya'll have moved on, but I was struck by a couple of things..

Quote:

Believing that the cosmos was created by a deity is not inconsistent with believing that the theory of evolution correctly explains the progression from single cell organisms to the life forms which today inhabit the planet

One is there is no way the theory of evolution can compute with the creation account in Genesis. The earth and its inhabitants including man and woman were created in a literal seven days, I am pretty sure the theory of evolution would take more than seven days for a monkey to evolve in a man. (without googling, I think that is theory?)

Quote:

One of the first things you will learn is that the theory of evolution is not concerned with cosmic origins, nor is it concerned with abiogenesis nor the origin of life

Your right; I was thinking evolution somehow was tied in with the creation of the universe. Guess that debate would fall into the big bang theory? I am pretty sure that is taught in schools as well. (Never heard of the word "abiogenesis.:" Just looked it up along a few others you used.)

Considering evolution don't concern itself with abiogenesis, how does the theory explain itself when it comes to how the first life form came into being in oder for other life forms to evolve from it?

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

I understand, there are a lot of different interpretations and different theological beliefs not to mention atheist...It would get complicated.

1 Reply

@revel,

Some basics to consider:
-many religious people treat Genesis as allegory
-monkeys did not evolve into man (apes and human beings merely share a common ancestor; this common ancestor is extinct)
-Darwin titled his book "Origin of SPECIES" (Darwin did not address the issue of origin of life)

1 Reply

@revel,

Quote:

Considering evolution don't concern itself with abiogenesis, how does the theory explain itself when it comes to how the first life form came into being in oder for other life forms to evolve from it?

Well-- a small percentage of people think it was a simple accident with no meaning. A "POOF" if you like. Like spontaneous combustion.

The number would be even smaller if it was explained to those people the implications of the view which a fair number do hold to rather casually and without giving it too much thought. But still, there are some who hold to it after pondering the matter seriously. Like what's in it for them.

Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to give a definitive answer. I was denied an American scientific education you see.

The majority hold all sorts of views on the matter. The Queen of Heaven having laid an egg for example and it hatching out by the heat of the sun. I know that begs the question of who laid the egg from which the Queen of Heaven hatched from but I'm not qualified to answer that. Not even speculatively.

But if our Christian explanation is accepted there seems no reason to assume that if the feat was accomplished by design with a meaning then the designer has the capacity to do anything.

It is the implications you need to focus your intelligence upon.

0 Replies

@revel,

Right -- once you open the subject in a science classroom, it could easily be opening a can of worms with one worm not matching another. If you stick to Christianity's version of how the life came to be, it would excluded all other religions and, in effect, be advocating a state religion.

Those who want Creationism taught in schools speak and write about critical thinking? They've certain had plenty of that without science between religions -- one criticizing the other to the point of the label of heresy if one doesn't believe what they believe. But, by their choice, the heads of the church have tried to show that science can be reconciled with religion and faith. That's "can be," and no matter how they've inched towards that reconciliation, it is as fragile as a wet Kleenex.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

That's "can be," and no matter how they've inched towards that reconciliation, it is as fragile as a wet Kleenex.

You should have heard the "can be"s and "may do"s and "could show us" s and "might lead to"s in last night's short BBC News interview with the scientist who leads the £1.5 billion programme in Europe to out do Hubble.

It was launched yesterday and we were given a brief insight into where our money is going. Using models of course.

Nothing has been heard of the £14 billion Hadron Collider since they switched it on and it fused all the circuits. It must be six months by now. That was heavily promoted with a blitz of variations on "can do". In very reverent hushed tones too. I fell to my knees at one point in a posture of abject and supine worship.

0 Replies

The two European scopes which were launched are not optical like the Hubble. One is the infrared telescope Herschel and will study the earliest stages of star and galaxy development. It's also equipped to search for the presence of water in outer space. The other is the Planc which is a microwave telescope that will study the radiation left behind by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. It is also capable of discovering more about dark matter and dark energy.

As far as the Hadron Collider, 10,000 scientists, along with universities and laboratories from around 100 countries are involved with the United Kingdom, providing about 15-16% of the investment, and the US contributing around $ 600 million. The failure of the magnets which caused the shut-down and repair was because of Fermilab providing faulty parts. It's up and running again in a few months.

I hope you didn't throw your back out prostrating yourself at the alter of science.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know